Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ASSISTANCE BOARD.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will issue a report, for each administrative area, of the work of the Unemployment Assistance Board Advisory Committees, including the advice tendered by the advisory committees to the local area officer;
(2) whether he will issue a report showing the effect of the operation of the Rent Allowance Regulation in each administrative area covered by the Unemployment Assistance Board Advisory Committees?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): It would be premature to draw up such reports in advance of experience of the working of the new Regulations, but the board inform me that they intend to make available as much information as possible about the work of the advisory committees as soon as this can appropriately be done. I am informed by the board that information on these points will be included in their annual report for 1936.

Mr. SMITH: Will the Minister reconsider this matter in order that Members of the House can keep themselves acquainted with the administration of each area?

Mr. BROWN: It is with that desire that I have given the answer.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Will the Minister speak a little more slowly in order that we can get hold of his answers?

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Minister of Labour the number of days during 1935 and 1936, respectively, when the

Unemployment Assistance Board met and the average duration of the sessions?

Mr. BROWN: I am informed that formal meetings of the board were held on 64 days in 1935 and on 35 days up to date in 1936, the duration of the meetings being usually about four hours. I should add that the chairman and vice-chairman give whole time attendance, and that the other members devote a good deal of time to administrative work apart from formal meetings of the board.

Mr. KIRBY: asked the Minister of Labour the number of officers transferred from service with public assistance committees to the service of the Unemployment Assistance Board who, having been promised that they would be placed on the established list with pension rights, have so far been placed, giving the figures throughout the country as a whole and in the City of Liverpool, respectively?

Mr. BROWN: 1,123 persons transferred from local authority service to serve in a temporary capacity under the Unemployment Assistance Board were declared successful last May in a limited competition for pensionable posts, subject to their satisfying the Civil Service Commissioners as to their eligibility for appointment on grounds of age, health and character. Of this total 905 have so far been certificated to pensionable posts. The corresponding figures for the City of Liverpool are 43 and 35, respectively.

ADDITIONAL MINISTRY OFFICES, OXFORDSHIRE.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: asked the Minister of Labour the names of the additional offices for Ministry of Labour business which are being established or are about to be established in rural areas in Oxfordshire?

Mr. E. BROWN: Additional offices in Oxfordshire have been established at Bampton, Burford, Charlbury, Checkendon, Eynsham, Hook Norton, Stadhampton, Watlington and Wheatley.

AGRICULTURE (LONG-TERM HIRINGS).

Sir PERCY HURD: asked the Minister of Labour the number and character of long-term hirings made under the agricultural unemployment insurance scheme in the country generally and in Wiltshire in particular?

Mr. E. BROWN: Between 4th May and 4th October last, 36,641 declarations of long hiring were made under Section 10 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1936. Of these 25,372 related to yearly contracts and 11,269 to half-yearly contracts. In Wiltshire there were 405 declarations, 202 relating to yearly contracts and 203 relating to half-yearly contracts.

MOVEMENT OF LABOUR.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of men in the engineering trade who have moved from Lancashire to work in other districts in the last six months;
(2) whether he can give the movement of labour from one district to another during the last six months to meet the calls arising out of defence contracts in certain districts?

Mr. E. BROWN: I regret that no statistics are available on the points my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. CHORLTON: Is it not possible to get same statistics and have them worked out?

Mr. BROWN: I do not think that that can be done, but I have some non-statistical information which may interest my hon. Friend, and which I will give him if he will call at my Department.

JUVENILES.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Labour for an estimate of the number of juveniles between the ages of 14 and 18 who are unemployed, in employment, and still at school but registered for employment, respectively?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply is long and includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

At 26th October, 1936, there were 96,989 unemployed juveniles, between the ages of 14 and 18 years, on the registers of Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux in Great Britain; of these 49,541 were under 16 years of age. I am not in possession of information showing the numbers of these who were still at school, but a special return which was obtained for 22nd June, 1936, showed that of 43,331 juveniles under 16 years of age who were on the registers at

that date, 10,375 were in whole-time attendance at day-schools. Statistics are not available as to the total numbers of juveniles in employment, but an approximation to the numbers of insured juveniles in employment can be obtained, for the end of June of each year, by deducting the numbers of such juveniles recorded as unemployed at that date from the total numbers of insured juveniles as estimated on the basis of the annual exchange of unemployment books. At the end of June, 1936, the number of insured juveniles under 18 years of age, exclusive of those insured under the agricultural scheme, is estimated to have been approximately 1,945,000, of whom 62,385 were recorded as unemployed at 22nd June. As regards persons insured under the agricultural scheme the total number of juveniles, under 18 years of age, to whom unemployment books had been issued at the end of June, 1936, was about 70,000; the number of such juveniles recorded as unemployed at 22nd June was 374.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: asked the Minister of Labour whether the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment have reviewed the system of authorised courses and the question of providing meals in the various centres; and, if so, will he state the result of their deliberations?

Mr. BROWN: The National Advisory Councils for Juvenile Employment are at present reviewing the system of authorised courses and the question of providing meals in junior instruction centres.

Mr. HALL: Can the right lion. Gentleman tell us when these inquiries are likely to come to an end, as this matter has been in the hands of his Department for 15 months, and whether the Special Commissioner has specially considered it?

Mr. BROWN: At this moment—either to-day or to-morrow—the sub-committee are in South Wales dealing with this very point.

Mr. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the report is expedited and see that there should not be so much complaint about the physical condition of the children, but that they should be fed?

Mr. BROWN: I have been doing all I can to expedite the matter, and shall continue to do so.

Mr. MAINWARING: Has the attention of the Minister been called to the medical surveys already taken of children in these training centres and of the astounding degree of malnutrition disclosed as existing among them?

Mr. BROWN: That is another question and not under my jurisdiction, but I would point out that the National Councils of Juvenile Employment are surveying the field on the point mentioned.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not under the right hon. Gentleman's jurisdiction since the passing of the last Regulations?

Mr. BROWN: Not the health reports.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not definitely stated that one of the things which the Unemployment Assistance Board will look after is the health and well-being of the unemployed men?

Mr. BROWN: There have been no such health reports from that quarter. The hon. Member must be referring to health reports which have nothing to do with that particular Act.

UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Labour the present amount of the funded debt of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the present amount outstanding to the credit of the fund, together with the respective average rates of interest paid and received respectively?

Mr. E. BROWN: At the present time the amount outstanding of the debt of the Unemployment Fund is about £104,740,000, on which the current rate of interest averages about 3⅓ per cent. As from October, 1938, the rate will be 3⅓ per cent. At the 7th November, 1936, the balance of the fund was about £36,800,000; this balance is invested in short term securities on which the rate of interest averages about 1⅓ per cent.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Having regard to these figures, would it not be an advantage if some of the surplus were used to pay off the debt?

Mr. BROWN: The Committee reported on that and were not of that opinion. The Committee will make another review at the end of the year, when the situation will be again reported on.

Mr. BELLENGER: Is it not possible to get better rates of interest on this

surplus, bearing in mind the amount that is paid on the debt?

Mr. BROWN: No, Sir. The hon. Member must understand that the debt was incurred over varying periods of years, and that in the early period the rates of interest were higher than in the later part.

Mr. THURTLE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman put some of the surplus into longer-term securities and get better interest?

Mr. BROWN: I am satisfied that the very best is being done with it. A comparison with past figures will show that it is going down.

DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Labour whether anything is being done to provide new industries for the Bishop Auckland, Crook, and Shildon areas in Durham county, where the percentage of unemployed is 46.6, 33.6, and 40.2, respectively?

Mr. E. BROWN: South-west Durham has the advantage of the general measures taken by the Commissioner to make the Special Areas more attractive and better known. I would also draw the attention of the hon. Member to paras. 143–147 of the Third Report of the Commissioner for Special Areas, England and Wales, which was presented to Parliament on Tuesday last.

Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the past 12 months there has been very little reduction in the percentage of unemployment in that area and no signs of new industries being introduced? What is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to deal with that situation?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot deal with that now. If the hon. Gentleman will give his attention to these paragraphs, he will see that the special position of southwest Durham is fully recognised by the Commissioner.

Mr. DALTON: It may be recognised by the Commissioner, but is it recognised by the Government?

Mr. BROWN: It is also recognised by the Government.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to paragraph 2, the position is hopeless so far as the present policy is concerned, that nothing is being done, and that the Commissioner says nothing can be done along the present lines?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows very well that this is one of the areas which is very hard hit because of a complete revolution in the coal export trade, and it would be misleading on the part of anybody on either side of the House to pretend that there is any quick and easy way of remedying the results of that tragic change.

Mr. WHITELEY: asked the Minister of Health whether, arising from the interview he had with representatives of the Durham County Council, he has anything to suggest whereby the difficulties in that Special Area may be minimised?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I can add nothing to what was said on behalf of the Government in last Monday's Debate with reference to the Special Areas.

Mr. WHITELEY: Are we to understand that as a result of that deputation there is to be absolutely no action taken on the part of the Government to give attention to the very serious matters raised at that time?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, that is another matter altogether.

TRANSFEREES.

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been transferred from the distressed areas to work in the London area for the six months to the last convenient date; and whether, from the records in his Department, these transfers show that they have accentuated the overcrowding condition in any of the London areas?

Mr. E. BROWN: During the six months ended September, 1936, 4,653 persons (2,263 men, 394 women, 1,534 boys, 462 girls) from the depressed areas were placed in employment in the London area through the employment exchanges. In addition a considerable number found work in London through their own efforts I have no information which indicates that the transfers have had any material effect on the housing position.

Mr. DAY: Is any contribution made to the unemployed towards their expenses of living in London?

Mr. BROWN: That question is in much too general terms. There are a number of arrangements, but before I could answer a question I should want to know whether it refers to families, to individuals, to adults or to juveniles.

Mr. DAY: Are any contributions made to the individual?

Mr. BROWN: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

INSURANCE (SALARY LIMIT).

Mr. BARNES: asked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has yet been arrived at in connection with the recommendation of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee in favour of raising the salary limit for unemployment insurance to £400 per annum?

Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Mr. CARTLAND: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Special Areas Commissioners have been invited to give their views on the continuation of the Special Areas Act in its present form; and whether they favour any amendments to the Act?

Mr. E. BROWN: The views of the Commissioners are contained in their published reports.

Mr. CARTLAND: Have the actual district commissioners been asked to give their views with regard to amendments of the Act?

Mr. BROWN: I understand my hon. Friend's question to refer to the Commissioners, and not to the district commissioners. I understand that there is the closest working between the Commissioners for England and Wales and for Scotland and the district commissioners.

Mr. CARTLAND: Will my right hon. Friend make this information available before this Act is discussed in the House?

Mr. BROWN: I will see what I can do.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the Schedule to the Special Areas Act? Is he aware


that some parts of Lancashire are in a very much worse position than some of the areas that are scheduled? Is it not possible for the Act to include those areas?

Mr. BROWN: That is not the present intention.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not true to say that on several matters the opinions of the Commissioners have been constantly ignored by the Government?

Mr. BROWN: The recommendations of the Commissioners have been given instant and most careful consideration by the Government, and those the Government have thought wise have been put into operation.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that no opportunity will be given to extend the areas now in the Schedule when the Act comes up for discussion in the House?

Mr. BROWN: That, obviously, is the case from the proposal to extend the Act under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Mr. GRENFELL: What is the use of pretending that the Special Areas Act is for the benefit of the distressed areas when many of them are outside the scheduled areas and are in a serious position?

Mr. BROWN: The House must understand that there are other modes of helping these areas, and that some of the principal operations under the Act are only just beginning to show themselves. We must have time.

Mr. LAWSON: Has not the position as regards these Special Areas altered altogether since the report of the Chief Commissioner? In view of the extraordinary nature of that report do the Government still intend to push this Act through under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?

Mr. BROWN: I do not think I can debate that question now.

HALF-CASTE CHILDREN.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing number of half-caste children in Cardiff, Liverpool, Glasgow, and other

ports; and what steps are being taken to meet the difficulty which occurs in finding employment for boys and girls who are the result of miscegenation in these ports?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Will my right hon. Friend see that in such employment the standard of living of the community is not lowered owing to the unfortunate position of these people?

Mr. BROWN: I think I had better complete my inquiries.

Mr. LOGAN: Are the words "half-caste" a misprint? Should it not be "half-fed"?

Mr. KENNEDY: Will the Minister correct me if I am wrong in stating that the number of children referred to in this question is very much smaller in Glasgow than in other parts?

Mr. BROWN: I will complete my inquiries first.

ALLOWANCES.

Mr. LAWSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether there is to be any reduction of the allowance of the 60,000 young men who were specifically mentioned in the memorandum of the Unemployment Assistance Board when the Regulations were issued?

Mr. BROWN: The estimate of 60,000 to which my hon. Friend refers did not relate only to young single applicants but included also all cases of grossly excessive allowances. I am informed by the board that they do not intend to make reductions of allowances in such cases in any area until the advisory committee for that area has had an opportunity of considering the matter. When all cases have been reassessed under the new Regulations, particulars will be submitted to each committee, but in the meantime the board have asked the committees to consider dealing with certain limited types of case at an early date. This request is set out in a Memorandum A.C.G. /4, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The total number of applicants of all classes affected in this initial period would


probably be about 8,000, and these would be in large part applicants with substantial personal earnings in addition to their allowances.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was a Press report stating that there would be no reduction before Christmas?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member surely would not wish me to take responsibility for a Press report. That would be a little too hard.

COMMISSIONER FOR SPECIAL AREAS.

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether the terms of Sir George Gillett's appointment and his powers differ in any and, if so, in what way from those of his predecessor, Mr. Malcolm Stewart?

Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir.

Miss WILKINSON: Do I understand that in spite of the statement in the report that the Special Commissioners have not adequate powers, and need more, that the Government are not considering the point?

Mr. BROWN: I could not accept the hon. Lady's interpretation of the report of Mr. Malcolm Stewart, and I have nothing to add to my answers.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not true that Mr. Malcolm Stewart has complained of the lack of powers, and in view of that is it not desirable to grant additional powers to his successor?

Mr. BROWN: There are paragraphs in the first report which have been much misrepresented, and I hold to my previous supplementary answers.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot read plain English, and in just plain English has not Mr. Malcolm Stewart said that he has not the powers to do the job the Government asked him to do? In that case, what is the use of asking Sir George Gillett to waste his time doing a job if the Government do not give him the necessary powers?

Mr. BROWN: I do not accept the hon. Lady's reading of the first report—

Miss WILKINSON: I—

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Lady will only listen to me as patiently as I listened to her then, perhaps, she will understand plain English. I do not accept her interpretation of the first report. The Commissioner pointed out that he had not power to give grants to certain undertakings where other Departments had the power to do it. There was a small section, also, where there was overlapping, and that point has been met and there is no more complaint. With regard to other powers, the Commissioner agreed that he did not desire to have them.

Miss WILKINSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman and I are rather at cross purposes. Those points are certainly met, but that was not the point of my question, which was directed to the specific statement by Mr. Malcolm Stewart, both in his report and in the Press, that his general powers were not sufficient for the job?

JARROW MARCHERS.

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds the unemployment assistance benefit has been refused to the Jarrow marchers, in view of the fact that they were kept continually in touch with the Jarrow Exchanges, ready to return to work if any were available, and were constantly in touch during the march with prospective employers?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am informed that the Unemployment Assistance Board has no power to pay allowances to unemployed persons who are not available for work and that so long as the men in question were participating in the march they could not be accepted by the Board as so available. The question whether applicants for allowances are available for work is one which the Board's officers and the appeal tribunals have to decide in the light of the circumstances. I am informed that a number of cases were heard by the local appeals tribunal yesterday, and that their decision will be given immediately.

Miss WILKINSON: Pending that decision can the right hon. Gentleman suggest in what other ways men can be made available for work, if they are, as in this case, kept in constant touch with their Exchange and ready to be sent home whenever required; and are they not in


touch with more prospective employers on the road than they would be in Jarrow?

Mr. BROWN: Since the matter is under appeal I certainly could not express any opinion about it.

COLOURED PEOPLE, GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. AMMON: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the conditions which obtain in several of our ports among the coloured population and that the distress among this section of the community is increasing; and whether he proposes to confer with the Colonial Office as to the possibility of bringing about a reduction in the number of coloured and half-caste population in the ports of Cardiff, Liverpool, Glasgow and Hull?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have nothing to add to the reply which was given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether consideration has been given by the Home Office over a number of years to the increasing difficulty which arises from the growing numbers of coloured and half-caste people in the ports of this country; whether his attention has been drawn to reports by social organisations upon the distressing social conditions among these people; and whether he is prepared to confer with the Colonial Office and the Board of Trade as to what steps can be taken to mitigate these evils?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): A deputation from voluntary organisations was recently received by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on various matters relating to coloured seamen. These matters are under consideration at the present time in consultation with the Departments mentioned.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Does that investigation also apply to our own seamen on merchant ships in our own ports?

UNOFFICIAL STRIKES.

Major DESPENCER-ROBERTSON: asked the Minister of Labour how many, unofficial strikes have taken place in this country during the last 12 months; whether he has any evidence as to the subversive influences which are causing such strikes; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action?

Mr. E. BROWN: Statistics are not available showing the total number of strikes which have not been officially recognised by the trade unions concerned, since specific inquiries on this point are not made by the Department. From an examination of such information as is in its possession, however, it would appear that of a total of 1,101 stoppages of work, owing to trade disputes, reported in the period from the beginning of January, 1935, to the end of September, 1936, at least 530 were within this category. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: How many of these disputes were lock-outs by the owners and not strikes by the men?

Mr. BROWN: The answer deals with strikes.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I thought you would not have them.

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member puts down a question about lock-outs, I will try to give the answer.

HYDE PARK REGULATIONS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Home Secretary the number of prosecutions that have been instituted against persons for breach of the regulations in Hyde Park for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and will he give particulars?

Sir J. SIMON: During the 12 months ended 31st October, 2,718 persons were prosecuted for breaches of the Hyde Park regulations. The particulars involve a number of figures and, with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Have all these prosecutions been disposed of, or have several been adjourned sine die?

Sir J. SIMON: I could not say without notice.

Following are the figures:

The offences in respect of which proCeedings were taken were as follow:



Cases.


Exceeding the 20 m.p.h. speed limit
1,728


Indecency
599


Wilfully interfering with persons using the Park
145


Allowing motor vehicles to remain stationary after sunset 
91


Using the Park as a standing place for vehicles 
50


Miscellaneous
105

SHOPS ACTS (INSPECTIONS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: asked the Borne Secretary whether in view of the unsatisfactory inspection under the Shops Acts by some local authorities, he will consider setting up a special department for this purpose on similar lines to those of factory and workshop inspection?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. I have no evidence before me which would justify such a radical departure from the principle of local administration of these Acts, which has been deliberately re-affirmed by Parliament in two recent Statutes.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of calling for an annual report from all local authorities in order to find out how these Acts of Parliament are working?

Sir J. SIMON: I will, of course, consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but, as he knows, the Home Office has always been ready to take up cases brought to its attention, and there have been instances undoubtedly in which good results have followed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

MINER'S NYSTAGMITS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Home Secretary when the report of the Departmental Committee on miner's nystagmus will be available?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the committee have almost finished taking evidence and have commenced consideration of their report. I am afraid, however, that it is not possible to say at

present when the report will be completed. The hon. Member will appreciate that the inquiry is not limited to miner's nystagmus but covers also the important questions of the general medical procedure and arrangements under the Acts, and the working of existing provisions and practice in regard to lump sum settlements.

SILICOSIS AND ANTHRACOSIS (SOWALES).

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: asked the Home Secretary whether he has received the report of the committee of experts that has been investigating the problem of silicosis and anthracosis in the South Wales coalfield; and, if so, what is the nature of the report; and when is it proposed to take steps to widen the provisions of the various industries (silicosis) schemes so as to enable those now denied compensation under those schemes, and who have to depend on public assistance, to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The committee of experts to which the hon. Member refers was appointed by the Medical Research Council, and I understand that they have made some suggestions to the council for further research and that these are at present under consideration by the council. As regards the general position, I am afraid I cannot add anything to the statement which I made in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 16th July, when I explained that, in the present state of medical knowledge, it is impossible to say whether mineworkers with pulmonary disease other than silicosis are suffering from any form of illness which can be distinguished as occupational and made the subject of a right to compensation.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that there is an increasing and continuing number of men who fail to continue their work because of lung trouble which their own medical adviser has said is due to their occupation, but that they cannot get compensation, and in view of the urgency of the matter to men who are condemned to a living death, will he not expedite this inquiry so that they may obtain justice?

Mr. LLOYD: I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman, but the remarks which he has made prejudge the results of this inquiry, which is to ascertain whether this condition is caused by the occupation.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether, pending the report of the inquiry, he can tell us exactly who appoints the medical boards in various parts of the country, and what qualifications they have to fulfil their position?

Mr. LLOYD: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question down on that point.

CARD-ROOM DUST.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement with regard to the position of the Home Office in respect of card-room dust, as a result of the recent deputation representing the card-room workers' amalgamation?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. I have decided to set up a committee to explore the question whether a workable scheme can be devised for providing some compensation for card-room and certain other workers disabled by respiratory illness as indicated in the report of the Committee en Dust in Cardrooms.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give us the names of the committee?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not in a position at the moment to make an announcement in regard to the constitution of the committee, but no time will be lost.

FASCIST AND COMMUNIST FUNDS (FOREIGN SUBSIDIES).

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: asked the Horne Secretary whether his Department keep any check upon sums of money which are sent from abroad to the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists; and, if so, whether he can give any indication of the amount and origin of foreign subsidies to Fascist propaganda and organisation in Great Britain?

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot make a detailed statement, but information has reached me which goes to show that, both in the case of Fascist and Communist

organisations, their funds have been supplemented from abroad.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I did not ask about the Communists. We have heard that so often. I gather from the Home Secretary that his Department has definite knowledge that money is being received in this country by the Fascists; may I ask what steps are being taken to try to stop that practice?

Sir J. SIMON: I have nothing to add to my answer, but the hon. Gentleman may take it that what I have stated applied to Communists as well as Fascists.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to supply us with the details in both cases?

Mr. BELLENGER: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether such moneys would be returned to the contributors under the Bill which he is introducing?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must wait for the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE CORONATION.

TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.

Mrs. TATE: asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to take special measures to deal with the abnormal increase in London traffic during the Coronation period?

Sir J. SIMON: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the question of the measures to be taken to deal with traffic during the Coronation period is at present receiving very close consideration. Full schemes are being worked out, but these are not at present in final form.

PROCESSION (SEATS).

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Lord President of the Council what control, if any, the Government propose to have over seats to view the Coronation procession; and whether, if the prices charged are excessive, they will consider changing the route of the procession and controlling the prices charged?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As I stated in the House last Thursday in reply to the hon. and gallant Member


for Salford, South (Major Stourton), the question of seats to view the Coronation procession is, at the present time, under the consideration of the Coronation Committee. The Government has, however, no power of control over seats on private property. As regards the latter part of the question, the suggestion made by the hon. Member seems to me to be quite impracticable.

Sir P. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the general information is that any private person is unlikely to be able to get seat to see the procession, except at a very high fee, and does he realise that that will cause grave discontent among many of His Majesty's subjects?

Mr. MacDONALD: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will Await the report of the Coronation Committee, which is dealing with all these questions.

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the past few days an official report has been issued stating that none of the seats erected by His Majesty's Office of Works will be available to the public?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am not aware of that. If it has been published it is inaccurate.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is the chairman of the Coronation Committee? Are they satisfied that a really strong man is in that position?

Mr. MacDONALD: Yes.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Home Secretary what action has been taken with university authorities in general, and Edinburgh in particular, in relation to anti-poison-gas instruction; whether this has been included in the curriculum as a compulsory subject by his order; what authority he has for such action; and whether it is intended to impose any penalty upon students who object to take such a subject as part of their studies in the public health course?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend has appointed a number of medical instructors in anti-gas precautions who, amongst

their duties, will give instruction to medical students in accordance with arrangements which have been made with the authorities of universities and medical schools. The question whether this subject should be taught on a compulsory or voluntary basis is a matter entirely for the authorities responsible for medical education.

Mr. MATHERS: Are the hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary himself aware that, apart from those students who think that to have this instruction is to give way to the idea that war is inevitable, there is a strong body of opinion that they are being, in this way, included in what may be described as the Government's military machine, and that it is on that ground that the objection is raised to the compulsory nature of the instruction?

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is it not in the public interest that such instruction should take place generally throughout the country?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the Home Secretary whether satisfactory arrangements have been made for the large-scale manufacture of gas-masks?

Mr. LLOYD: Yes, Sir. Substantial stocks of components of the civilian respirator have already been produced, and we expect to be in large scale assembly by next month.

Sir A. KNOX: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any idea what the weekly output is now, and when there will be sufficient to equip all people who are likely to be in danger of air attack, in the South of England?

Mr. LLOYD: We expect the production of this factory to be running roughly at the rate of 2,000,000 per month very shortly.

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman give information as to when they will be required?

Sir P. HARRIS: What company has a monopoly of the particular process of production which is considered safe by the Government?

Mr. LLOYD: It is a Government factory.

Captain CAZALET: Will there be any control over the price at which these are to be sold?

Mr. LLOYD: They will be issued free to the general population in the event of emergency.

Mr. BROOKE: asked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Air Raids Precautions Department to issue a handbook free to the public on air raid precautions; if so, when such handbooks will be issued; and if and to what extent such handbooks have yet been printed?

Mr. LLOYD: As I have previously stated, this matter is under active consideration. A large number of important details are involved, and I will inform the House as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Mr. BROOKE: Is it not a fact that over 1,500,000 of these handbooks have been printed and are lying unused in the cellars of the Home Office? Who gave authority for them to be printed?

Mr. LLOYD: That information is not accurate.

Mr. BOSSOM: Will the hon. Member explain when the people who are to use these gas masks will be fitted with them?

Mr. G. HARDIE: Will it not be the night before?

CINEMATOGRAPH EXHIBITIONS.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: asked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to prevent any cinematograph film company from depicting the Almighty as a screen character in view of the anxiety which many sections of the British public feel regarding this?

Sir J. SIMON: The decision as to whether a particular film shall or shall not be allowed to be exhibited is one for the local licensing authorities, and I have no power to issue any instructions to them.

LICENSING STATISTICS.

Sir ROBERT YOUNG: asked the Home Secretary (1) the number of proceedings and convictions for drunkenness, respectively, in 1935 for England, and for Wales, for counties, and county

boroughs, respectively, distinguishing male and female convictions, and the number of convictions reported due to methylated spirits; and whether the figures represent any increase on those of 1933 and 1934;
(2) the number of on- and off-licences and registered clubs on 1st January, 1935, in England and Wales, respectively, and the decrease in on-licences during 1935, distinguishing renewals refused, with and without compensation, and licences lapsed?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the volume of Licensing Statistics for 1935, which is being published to-day. It contains the figures for which he asks.

CONVICTED PRISONERS (INSANITY).

Mr. DAY: asked the Home Secretary the number of female prisoners who were certified insane after their reception into prison as convicted persons for the three years to the last convenient date; and whether mental examinations are made of all convicted prisoners?

Sir J. SIMON: All prisoners are medically examined on reception, and this includes a special examination of a prisoner's mental condition if it appears desirable. The number of female prisoners certified insane during the last three years was 13 in 1933; 22 in 1934; and 11 in 1935.

Mr. DAY: Would it not be better if these prisoners, certified as insane after sentence, had been thoroughly examined before sentence?

Mrs. TATE: In view of the fact that in many mental hospitals at present there are 300 patients to one doctor, would it not be better if these persons received adequate physical treatment for the mentally insane before we put additional work on the doctors?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LORD MAYOR'S PROCESSION (TRAFFIC DISLOCATION).

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the extent of the dislocation of


traffic both within and without the boundaries of the City on the occasion of the Lord Mayor's Show; and whether he has any proposals for diminishing the public inconvenience on such occasions in future?

Sir J. SIMON: This procession inevitably gives rise to a certain amount of inconvenience; the whole question was carefully reviewed in consultation with the City authorities in 1933, and since then every effort has been made to minimise the inconvenience caused to the public. This year the distance traversed was approximately one mile less than in 1932, and the length of the procession was about 170 yards shorter. I am informed by the Commissioners both of the City and of the Metropolitan Police that the delay and dislocation of traffic this year were considerably less than in previous years.

Mr. LEWIS: Could not far more people see the show, and much less inconvenience and dislocation of traffic be caused, if the show were held on a Saturday afternoon; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider that suggestion?

Sir J. SIMON: I will convey the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the appropriate authorities.

Colonel Sir VANSITTART BOWATER: Is it not a well-known fact that it would not be possible to hold the show on a Saturday afternoon, as it must be held on a particular day, and is there any man or woman in this country who would like the Lord Mayor's Show done away with?

SPEED LIMIT (POLICE METHODS).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that it is possible for the driver of a police car following another car to be able to determine with sufficient accuracy that the police car is travelling at the same speed as the other car; and is it realised that if a private car is travelling at 30 miles an hour and the police car gains 10 yards on it while travelling 100 yards, there is an error of three miles an hour in the estimated speed of the pursued car?

Sir J. SIMON: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that he is satisfied that it is possible for the

police, in the manner explained in answer to a question by my hon. Friend on the 9th instant, to determine with a reasonable degree of accuracy whether a car is or is not exceeding the speed limit. It is realised that a slight variation in the intervening distance between the police car and the car which is being followed is a factor which will affect the accuracy of the estimate of speed, and this consideration is taken into account by the police in deciding on their course of action.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In other words, if the police are aware that they are travelling faster than the other car, they make allowances for that?

Sir J. SIMON,: Yes, Sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not very undesirable that they should travel faster than the people who are supposed to be exceeding the speed limit?

MOTORING OFFENCES.

Mr. TURTON: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the advice given by Mr. Justice Goddard to the York city magistrate at York Assizes, on 9th November, on the interpretation of special circumstances with regard to the suspension or endorsement of driving licences for offences under the Road Traffic Acts; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding his circular issued on 22nd September, considerable uncertainty still exists as to the meaning to be attached to these words; and whether he will cause a copy of Mr. Justice Goddard's observations to be circularised to all benches of magistrates in the country?

Sir J. SIMON: I have seen a newspaper report of the Judge's remarks, which will no doubt be helpful to magistrates. I recognise the importance of this matter and the question whether there is anything further which my Department can do to assist magistrates is under consideration.

Mr. MAXTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman consult the Attorney-General on this matter as he himself has been a victim, having been convicted of exceeding the speed limit and having had his licence endorsed He may therefore have some special interest.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' CONTRACTS (COASTAL SHIPPING).

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement as to the investigations which his Department has been carrying out, jointly with the Board of Trade, into the advisability of suggesting to local authorities that they should insist upon the increased use by their contractors of coasting shipping for the transport of heavy materials wherever possible, in order to reduce traffic congestion?

Sir K. WOOD: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

PRISON SERVICE.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Home Secretary whether prison officers are officially classified as civil servants; whether prison officers or their representative board are allowed to appeal to the Civil Service Industrial Court; and, if not, will he state the authority for this prohibition?

Sir J. SIMON: Arbitration under the scheme agreed for the Civil Service is open only to recognised associations of civil servants within the scope of the National Whitley Council. Prison officers are not within the scope of the National Whitley Council and the alternative system of representative boards was specially designed to afford them full opportunities of making representations on matters affecting their interests.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Home Secretary what are the voluntary and compulsory retiring age limits of prison officers who had not adopted the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1909?

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the Act of 1909 deals with this subject: the relevant Act is the Superannuation (Prison Officers) Act, 1919. Before that Act was passed, prison officers could retire voluntarily at 60 and were obliged to retire at 65. Under that Act the age of voluntary retirement was fixed at 55 and of compulsory retirement at 60 as respects certain prescribed classes of officers. Others not so prescribed remained unaffected.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Home Secretary whether he will reconsider the question of reducing the working hours of the night patrols in His Majesty's prisons from a 50-hour week to a basis of eight hours a shift, putting the patrols on the same hourly basis as the permanent staff in prisons, having regard to the general recognition of the eight-hour day in the Civil Service and outside employment generally, and the unpleasant and dangerous nature of their duties; and will he-consider creating a scheme to place suitable applicants on the established staff?

Sir J. SIMON: The nature of the duties performed by night patrols is so different from the nature of the duties performed by prison officers during the working day that I do not think there is a case for assimilating their hours of duty and conditions of service.

Mr. McENTEE: Is it not a fact that the duties of the night men are very much more severe and more difficult than those of the day men and will he consider applications for promotion to permanent staff in suitable cases.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that view is generally held. It would certainly not be accepted by the established staff. There may be occasions when there are special difficulties, but normally the work at night consists of patrolling and keeping awake.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (LAMBERT v. LEVITA).

Mr. DOBBIE: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the evidence given in the recent case of Lambert v. Levita, before Mr. Justice Swift and a special jury, that an attempt had been made by high personages connected with the British Broadcasting Corporation to compel Mr. Lambert to desist from his action under threat of dismissal, he will take the necessary action, with, a view to setting up an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, into, the truth of the allegations made against individuals holding influential positions in the British Broadcasting Corporation?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I do not think that action under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act is appropriate in this instance. I have already appointed a special board, consisting of


Sir Josiah Stamp, Sir Maurice Gwyer, and Sir Findlater Stewart, to inquire into the matter. I take this opportunity to mention that, as soon as the case referred to ended, the Chairman of the 'British Broadcasting Corporation wrote to me saying that he and his colleagues would welcome an inquiry.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that report will be made public, and whether there will be an opportunity for debate in the House before the new appointments to the Broadcasting Committee are made and before the new Charter is finally settled?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have a note which, I think, will explain the position to the Leader of the Opposition. The board reports its findings on fact, with any observations, to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister then makes a decision and this decision, together with the report itself, is published. I think it is obvious that the matter would be a proper one for debate, but I should like to consider the point put to me my the right hon. Gentleman.

GRESFORD COLLIERY EXPLOSION.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for this House to have an opportunity of discussing the report on the Gresford colliery disaster?

The PRIME MINISTER: Until the report referred to by the hon. Member has been received I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. GRENFELL: Can the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that the report on an occurrence which happened more than two years ago should be made available to the House as soon as possible?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is a question later on the Order Paper.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the succession of these very terrible disasters —in this case aver 300 lives were lost—cannot the Prime Minister arrange on some suitable occasion for a discussion to take place once the reports are available to the general public?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that. We are very much alive to the importance of the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, NORTH WALES.

Mr. RICHARDS: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is satisfied that in the course of his recent visit to North Wales he was given an opportunity of seeing a fair sample of the elementary schools in that part of the country?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Although I have a very limited time available for visiting educational institutions in North Wales, I was able to visit a technical institute, three secondary schools, the Adult Residential College at Harlech and four elementary schools. While it was not possible in the time at my disposal to study all types of elementary school, I feel that, in the circumstances, the time at my disposal was usefully occupied, and I hope at a future date to have further opportunities of visiting schools in Wales.

Mr. RICHARDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman seize the next opportunity to see some of the worst schools in the rural areas?

ARSON PROSECUTION (TEACHER'S SALARY).

Mr. RICHARDS: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the board has finally decided to withhold the payment of its proportion of the salary of Mr. D. J. Williams, of Fishguard, one of the men implicated in the recent burning of the bombing school near Pwllheli; and by what authority was such action taken, especially in view of the fact that a prosecution was pending, and that no decision has as yet been given by the courts?

Mr. STANLEY: Mr. Williams has been suspended by the local education authority pending the result of the trial and the board have informed the authority that they cannot undertake to pay grant on his salary during this suspension. In accordance with the board's usual practice, I will await the outcome of the trial before coming to a final decision in the matter.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Was the suspension of this man's salary decided on prior to his conviction?

Mr. STANLEY: The local authorities suspended him from duty owing to the fact that while the trial was pending it was obviously impossible for him to carry on. I informed them that I was not prepared to recognise a grant of salary to a man suspended from duty pending the outcome of the trial.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that the man has not been convicted and that the jury did not agree?

Mr. STANLEY: I do not think the hon. Member can have listened to anything that I was saying. I will read the last paragraph of the answer:
In accordance with the board's usual practice, I will await the outcome of the trial before coming to a final decision in the matter.

STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.

Sir P. HARRIS: asked the President of the Board of Education how many of the 360 State scholarships offered this year have been awarded to pupils in grant-aided and non-grant-aided secondary schools, respectively; and whether the income limit for these scholarships has been raised and, if so, to what amount?

Mr. STANLEY: Of the 360 State scholarships awarded this year 331 were awarded to pupils in grant-aided schools and 29 to pupils in non-grant-aided schools. There is no fixed income limit; all the circumstances of the candidate and of his parents are considered before the grant is determined, but no grant would ordinarily be given if the parents' income exceeded £1,000. The working figure in previous years was £800.

CORONATION PROCESSION (SCHOOL CHILDREN).

Mr. WHITE: asked the President of the Board of Education if it is proposed to make any special arrangements for school children to view the Coronation procession?

Mr. STANLEY: The matter to which the hon. Member refers is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

RIVER POLLUTION.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the provisions of the Act of 1876 to deal effectively with river pollution; and whether it is his intention to put local authorities in a, better position to deal with this menace to health and amenity?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware that the provisions of this Act are inadequate. The Joint Committee on River Pollution are at present considering what measures are desirable to secure a more effective administration of the Act.

Mr. MATHERS: Is it not a fact chat local authorities only have the power meantime to warn those who pollute -streams, and that without very many chances being given to them they cannot be prosecuted?

Sir K. WOOD: The Joint Committee considered the provisions of the Act and, with one or two exceptions of a minor character did not think that they needed any alteration. What was considered desirable was further notice by the local authorities themselves. It is that matter to which the Joint Committee are directing their attention.

SEWAGE DISPOSAL, AYLESBURY RURAL DISTRICT.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the nuisance caused by the lack of proper arrangements for the disposal of sewage in the parish of Aston Clinton, in Buckinghamshire; that the Ministry held an inquiry into a scheme proposed by the Aylesbury Rural Distrist Council in June, and that no report or decision resulting from that inquiry has yet been issued; and will he, in view of the urgency of the matter, expedite a decision?

Sir K. WOOD: I am aware of the conditions in the parish of Aston Clinton and other parishes in the Aylesbury rural district. A conference will be held at my invitation on the 20th of this month between representatives of the district council and of the Aylesbury Town Council on a question of alternative methods of sewage disposal. I appreciate the urgency of the matter and will do all I can to expedite the decision.

MILK (PASTEURISATION).

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the recent epidemic in Bournemouth which involved 500 cases of infection and 40 deaths, he proposes to take steps to make the pasteurisation of milk compulsory?

Sir K. WOOD: I am, of course, fully aware of the facts of this case, but I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the subject at the present time.

Mr. MORRISON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman make a speech recently in which he said that pasteurisation would have prevented this epidemic?

Sir K. WOOD: I will send the hon. Member an exact copy of what I said. There is no doubt that in this case it had an important bearing on the matter.

MIDWIVES ACTS (LOCAL SUPERVISING AUTHORITIES).

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: asked the Minister of Health the names of the local authorities which are now local supervising authorities under the Midwives Acts?

Sir K. WOOD: As the reply includes a list of authorities I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFCIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The local supervising authorities in England and Wales for the purposes of the Midwives Acts are the county councils, the county borough councils, and the councils of the following non-county boroughs or urban districts:—


Barking.
Leyton.


Bedford.
Lowestoft.


Bromley.
Luton.


Cambridge.
Nuneaton.


Cheltenham.
Poole.


Chesterfield.
Scarborough.


Colchester.
Stockton-on-Tees.


Darwen.
Stretford.


Ealing.
Swindon.


Eccles.
Torquay.


Edmonton.
Tottenham.


Gillingham.
Walthamstow.


Guildford.
Weymouth and


Harrow.
Melcombe Regis.


Hove.
Willesden.


Ilford.
Wimbledon.


Leigh.

TRADE EFFLUHVIS.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered a representation sent from the Royal Sanitary Institute as to the urgent need of legislation for the drainage of trade premises; and whether he will introduce or give Government facilities for such a Bill?

Sir K. WOOD: I have this matter under consideration, but regret that I am not in a position at the moment to give a definite reply.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: As my right hon. Friend recognises that the consultative committees think that it is a matter of urgency, will he be able to take the matter in hand this Session?

Sir K. WOOD: That is a matter upon which my right hon. Friend here may have something to say.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN PLANNING.

DOVEDALE.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Minister of Health the position with regard to the progress of town-planning with regard to Dovedale, both on the Staffordshire and Derbyshire sides of the river?

Sir K. WOOD: The Peak Joint Committee on the Derbyshire side, and the Leek Rural District Council on the Staffordshire side, are preparing their schemes, which will be submitted to me in due course.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say he is satisfied that the Staffordshire and Derbyshire County Councils are effectively co-operating and that the Leek rural district council is showing the necessary energy in the matter, and will he make inquiries?

Sir K. WOOD: I will certainly make inquiries, but I am not aware of any difficulty at present.

BARNET BY-PASS.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that proposals are being made for industrial development on the Barnet by-pass; whether the local authorities concerned have adopted a town-plan for this arterial road; and whether development will be


strictly controlled under the Ribbon Development and Town and Country Planning Acts?

Sir K. WOOD: No proposals for industrial development on the by-pass to which my hon. Friend refers have been brought to my notice. Except for a small portion which is included in planning schemes already in operation, the road falls within the areas of schemes now in course of preparation and at this stage it rests with the local authorities to grant or refuse permission to develop. As the schemes have not yet been submitted to me for approval, I have no knowledge of the proposals for controlling the development of land along the road, but I have no reason to suppose that the local authorities including the county councils who are responsible under the Ribbon Development Act are not alive to the need for reasonable control.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: If those who are locally acquainted with this case know that matters are being proposed meanwhile, even though my right hon. Friend does not know about them, is it not rather a case of being too late when eventually he will get to know? Cannot he urge on the matter so that the local authorities can get these town planning proposals before him?

Sir K. WOOD: No, this matter is laid down in the Act of Parliament for the local authorities in the circumstances I have mentioned, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should get into touch with the local authorities, with whom, I have no doubt, he has considerable influence.

Mr. ACLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that what is in the best interests of local authorities coincides with the best interests of the nation on this matter?

Sir K. WOOD: That is a matter for argument.

URBAN DISTRICT COUNCILLORS (EXPENSES).

Mr. WHITELEY: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the requests from various urban district councils to provide expenses to members when called upon to attend meetings outside the area of the local authority represented by them; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: If, as I understand, the hon. Member has in mind meetings of assessment committees and guardians committees, the existing law does not admit of the payment of the expenses of members of these committees. Any proposal for amending legislation would need a consideration of much wider issues and I am not in a position at present to give any undertaking to introduce legislation on the subject.

Mr. WHITELEY: The point is that these meetings are held outside the area and the members feel that it is a very great hardship. That is the point that we are asking the Minister to take into consideration.

Sir K. WOOD: I am, of course, aware of that feeling, but the hon. Member will realise that it raises larger issues which would have to be dealt with at the same time.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the National Association of Urban and Rural District Councils are in favour of this long-delayed reform? Does he not think that time and efforts of the representatives of urban and rural district councils are of equal importance with those of county councillors?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, I recognise that the services of the smaller authorities in many respects are just as important as that of others, but the lion. Gentleman will realise that the matter that he raises would require legislation.

RURAL HOUSING.

Earl WINTERTON: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in nearly every rural and semi-rural area in the Home Counties the greatest difficulty is experienced by agricultural labourers and others of the lower-paid wage-earners in obtaining cottages at a rent which is within their resources, and that the difficulty has been increased in recent years by the tendency on the part of speculators and others to purchase agricultural cottages of a picturesque character as residences for people of a different class, and also by the demolition of old cottage property under the Housing Acts, without the provision by the local authority of alternative accommodation at the same rent; and if he will circularise


all local housing authorities in the Home Counties, calling their urgent attention to this matter?

Sir K. WOOD: I am aware of the difficulties referred to by my right hon. and noble Friend. Every opportunity is taken of impressing upon local authorities the need to take the fullest advantage of their powers under the Housing Acts. The number of new houses completed in the area to which he refers under the Act of 1930 is about equivalent to the number of houses demolished, but if my right hon. and noble Friend has any particular district in mind I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Earl WINTERTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this position is the subject of much concern to doctors, medical officers of health, clergy, social workers and the like? Increased building has led to no reduction in rents and there are no more houses available.

Sir K. WOOD: I could not accept that as a general statement. If my noble Friend has any particular district in mind, I shall be very glad to inquire into it.

Earl WINTERTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it applies to the whole of the rural districts of Sussex and Surrey?

Mr. TURTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this difficulty is not confined to the Home Counties?

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Would it not be far better to raise the wages to the level of the good house than reduce the house to the level of low wages?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great deal of this trouble is caused by houses being condemned which are quite fit for use?

Sir K. WOOD: My hon. and gallant Friend will know that I have taken many steps to impress upon local authorities the necessity of avoiding that wherever possible. I am glad to say that more houses have been dealt with by way of reconstruction during the last few months than we have ever had in a similar period in the history of the country.

RATING (LONDON).

Mr. CROWDER: asked the Minister of Health whether he is able to make

any further statement as to when it is intended to introduce the new Rating Bill for London?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham on 13th July, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

POPULATION PROBLEM.

Mr. LOGAN: asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared, in the interest of national prosperity and security, to formulate and carry out a national policy to meet the peril of declining population?

Sir K. WOOD: This matter is under consideration, but I am unable at present to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. LOGAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when he will be able to make a statement?

Sir K. WOOD: I will inform the hon. Member.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Can the right hon. Gentleman help the Oxford authorities who are going to give a bonus to people who get married there?

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that any action that he takes will not interfere with the right of mothers to have access to information which will enable them to regulate the size of their families?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member is inviting me on to a very dangerous path.

Mr. LOGAN: May I ask the Minister to give no such facilities?

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' CONTRACTS (LOCAL LABOUR).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at a recent meeting of the Hazel Grove and Bramhall Urban District Council a protest was made against the employment by contractors to the council of persons from outside this country on jobs that can be done by unemployed men residing in the neighbourhood; and, if


so, will he inquire into this allegation and take steps to allay the fears expressed at that meeting?

Sir K. WOOD: This matter has not previously been brought to my notice. I am making inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. DAVIES: If the facts are as stated in my question, will the right hon. Gentleman take the necessary action?

Sir K. WOOD: I think that I must make inquiries first.

DERATING (COLD STORAGE PREMISES).

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the importance of encouraging the provision of adequate facilities for food storage in this country, he will consider measures to extend to cold storage premises the benefits of derating under the Local Government Act, 1928?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 21st July to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah), of which I am sending him a copy.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

Mr. WHITE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state what steps he proposes to take consequent upon the agreement between Great Britain, France and the United States of America with regard to the stabilisation of the exchanges to promote the freer exchange of goods throughout the world?

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the governments c f France and the United States of America or otherwise, in view of their declaration that they attach the greatest importance to action being taken without delay to relax progressively the present system of quotas and exchange controls with a view to their abolition?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): In this country there is no system of quota restrictions on the import of industrial

goods, neither are there any exchange restrictions. As regards other barriers on international trade, it remains one of the main objects of the policy of His Majesty's Government to promote the exchange of goods between this country and other countries by means of bilateral trade agreements. As regards the general question of the freer exchange of goods throughout the world, His Majesty's Government will continue to keep in touch with the Governments of France and the United States of America and other Governments in order to take advantage of any opportunities that offer to promote the objects which they have in common.

Sir P. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the initiative in the matter and not leave the initiative to the United States of America and France? If they do not take action, cannot we take action ourselves?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have explained in the answer I have given that it is difficult for us to take action apart from other Governments.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will give some thought to the question which is the easier thing to do—to put a tariff on or take a tariff off?

GERMANY (LOANS).

Mr. CROWDER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the existing frozen credits in Germany, he will give an assurance that he will not sanction German attempts to float a loan in this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I am aware, no issue of a German loan in this country is under discussion, and, in view of the current market iquotations for German loans, I do not think that any such question is likely to arise at present.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the 1931 agreement between the Bank of England and the Treasury is still in operation, seeing that when the Government left the Gold


Standard the Bank's gold was allowed to remain at its old valuation and not to be written up to its market value until there was some agreement on the international exchanges, and that when that agreement was made the price of gold was 85s. per fine ounce, whereas the present selling price of gold is 142s. per fine ounce; whether, in consequence of the difference in values, the Bank of England will be required to hand over to the Treasury the sum of £160,000,000, being gold profits as a result of the tripartite agreement between France, the United States of America, and this country; for what purpose these profits are to be used; and on what date the Bank of England will make payment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member's question appears to be based on two misapprehensions. The first is that the tripartite agreement involves a revaluation of the pound in terms of gold. The agreement has no such effect. In the second place, while the Bank of England manages the Issue Department it has no financial interest in that department any profits of which are paid to the Treasury under Section 6 of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928. As the hon. Member will see from a reference to Part IV of the Finance Act, 1932, which is still in force, no question of profit on the gold in the Issue Department arises until revaluation. This is due to be made immediately before the Exchange Equalisation Account is wound up, and the difference between the market value and the fixed value of the gold is then to be transferred to that account and thereafter applied to redemption of debt.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a straightforward answer, "yes" or "no," as to whether the Bank are going to make a profit of something like £160,000,000? What can we do with a Minister who keeps fobbing off Members with evasive answers?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister to state the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Second Reading of the Public Order Bill.
Tuesday: Consideration of the Instruments of Instructions to the Governors of India Provinces and of Burma, and other outstanding Orders. Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: Second Reading of the Trunk Roads Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the report of the Commissioner for Special Areas, he will consider taking out from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill the Special Areas Act; and, in view of the feeling in the House that that matter should be discussed, and that the mere passing of that Act will be quite insufficient to deal with that problem, will he consider taking that course?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill can be moved out in Committee. That is the active stage of the discussion, but, as I said the other day, it is impossible to debate the merits of putting this Bill into the Expiring Laws Bill by question and answer. My own view—and it is a very strong view—is that the right hon. Gentleman rather misapprehends the situation, and I ask him to wait for the speech which will be made upon the introduction of the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The issue of the report really has nothing to do with it because the continuation of the Special Areas Act does certain specific things, but it does not prejudice in any way and cannot prejudice anything that the Government may think fit to do which is completely outside the present Act.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be taken as the first Order?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I will undertake to say that because I realise its importance. I will give a whole day to it.

Mr. THORNE: When the right hon. Gentleman was making his statement his right hon. Friend on his right shook his head, which indicated disagreement.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman opposite for calling my attention to a momentary and very rare disagreement between myself and my right hon. Friend. He very rightly took note of the fact that I did not use the words "Committee stage" when I should have done.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it will be possible for this House to debate fully the question of the Special Areas on the Motion to withdraw that Act from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, or whether there will be very strict limitations on the scope of that Debate? The Prime Minister has asked us to await the Committee stage and the statement that will be made then. I want to ask you, Sir, whether it will be possible for us to discuss the problem of the Special Areas on the Motion to exclude the Act from the Expiring Laws Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that, before I answer that question directly, I ought to say, in order that the House may not be mistaken, that on the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill there is no discussion at all, not even an introductory speech. Over and over again I myself and my predecessors have ruled that it is not possible to debate the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. As regards the actual question which the hon. Member asked me, as to whether there can be a full discussion during the Committee stage on an Amendment to leave out the Special Areas Act, I may say, although, of course, I shall not be in the Chair, that the fullest discussion would be allowed on such an Amendment.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be possible to have some statement or some discussion on this subject on the Committee stage of the Money Resolution?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly there could be a discussion at that stage, but the proper stage is the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, since the Debate last night, arrangements have been made for certain Ministers to meet certain

Members of this House, with certain marchers in order to discuss their grievances?

The PRIME MINISTER: I ought to have had notice of that question.

Mr. HARDIE: May we have an answer to the question as to whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Minister of Labour has made arrangements to meet any Member of the House with marchers from his constituency? Is that true or not?

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH.

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.

[SEVENTH DAY.]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [10th November] to Question [3rd November]:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Miss Horsbrugh]

Which Amendment was, at the end of the Question, to add the words:
But, having regard to the urgent problems arising from the expansion of British armaments and the strengthening of national defences, regret that the Gracious Speech foreshadows no legislation to implement the Report of the Royal Corn-mission on the manufacture of and trade in arms."—[Mr. Kingsley Griffith.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

3.53 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: The Amendment that my right hon. and hon. Friends are asking the House to consider this afternoon deals primarily with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the private manufacture of and trade in arms. When the Royal Commission was appointed, the subject of its inquiry was felt to be of very great importance, and the public opinion of this country was greatly concerned with it. We hold that the conclusions of the Royal Commission, taken as a whole, are of vital importance in connection with the policy of this country at the present time and in relation to any scheme of supply and defence. For my own part, I feel that the conclusions of the Royal Commission are no less important than any other proposals in relation to the problems of defence which we have to face at the present time. To mention only one section of their conclusions, the idea that in peace-time the private manufacture of and trade in arms might be

the source of great profit to certain sections of the community, and that in time of war, when individuals were risking their lives, other people should be in a position to enrich themselves, is repugnant to all decent-feeling people in this country; and it is quite clear that, unless some action is taken by the Government in order to give effect to the recommendation that the profit on the private manufacture of and trade in arms should be reduced to the level of a moderate remuneration, this country would not face unitedly any emergency which might arise. That is one of the aspects of the report to which we attach very great importance.
The Debate on Tuesday ranged a great deal over the question of supply, and the possibility of the establishment of effective control over all the sources of supply and the establishment of a Ministry of Supply. We on these benches attach the greatest possible importance, and think it is of the utmost consequence that effect should be given, to paragraph 6 of the conclusions of the Royal Commission, because, if this Debate has proved nothing else, it will at least have confirmed the belief of many of us that the task of co-ordinating defence is a tremendous one in itself, and that, if entrusted to a, Minister with adequate powers, it would leave him no time to grapple with the manifold and complex problems involved in the question of supply. These are some of the reasons why we have asked the House to consider this Amendment to the Address. Our Amendment has been drafted in wide terms, and, owing to the latitude which has been allowed, in the course of the Debate many matters of the utmost consequence have been raised, relating not merely to supply, but to strategy and policy. Unless it is possible to consider these matters in relation one to the other, the whole subject of defence can hardly be considered effectively.
I am bound to say that the impression left on my mind by the Debate up to now is not one of quiet confidence in an orderly plan of defence based upon a carefully conceived and precise policy. The impression left upon my mind is that there is a lack of decision in policy, and that there is considerable evidence of lack of control and dispersal of effort. We hear of a great variety of committees


and bodies which in one way or another are devoting themselves to the question of supply. The Service Departments themselves are engaged in considering the question of supply on the lines of the Ministry of Munitions; the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence presides over a committee of supply officers; and Sir Harold Brown is chairman of a body which is the nucleus of a Ministry of Supply within the War Office itself. I am glad to hear that, because one has heard from time to time rather disquieting reports in industrial areas with regard to frequent changes of specification in relation to contracts for the War Office and other matters which seem to indicate that some special attention is required to these matters in that office.
There are, however, one or two matters in regard to which I should like to ask for a little more precision. On Tuesday the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) raised a most important matter with regard to the future purpose and functions of our Army. He had no difficulty at all in pointing out, and obtaining agreement for the proposal, that we must have an Army, if we have an Army at all, for the purpose of defending our oversea territories. He then proceeded to ask for information, and challenged the policy, as to whether or not there was any possibility in the future of our having an Army which would intervene in Continental warfare on a large scale; as to whether it was conceivable that in the developments that have taken place in air warfare and the like, and the exceeding difficulty of maintaining communications, any useful purpose could be served by contemplating the operation of the British Army again in Continental warfare. That, indeed, is an important question. The First Lord, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, said it was our intention to have an all-purpose Army. That no doubt would include the prime purpose of our Army in defending our overseas possessions but it cannot be held to preclude, in the terms in which it was stated, the possibility of the Army being sent over to the Continent to engage in co-operation with a Continental Army.
I must confess that I was greatly surprised to hear the First Lord say that we had no definite commitments. It is

true that a short time ago, when the Locarno Pact was in operation, we had very terrible commitments. We were committed to go to war to aid, on either one side or the other, the various signatories to that Pact. But we were at least free under that Pact from definite commitments. The mere fact that we were pledged to one side or the other precluded us from making any definite engagements with the signatories; but the moment the Pact was broken it seemed to me that we had much more precise and definite commitments. I do not wish to ask for information which it would be unwise to give, but we cannot forget that from the moment of the disappearance of the Locarno Pact there was another arrangement come to which involved staff conversations, and if no commitments were entered into then one wonders with what object the staff conversations took place at all.
At this point I would say that unless we have commitments it would be quite impossible for us to carry out the policy foreshadowed in the speech of the Foreign Secretary at the end of last week. The right hon. Gentleman in an important speech then set out a policy based upon an attempt to revitalise the League of Nations and to re-establish or to make effective for the first time a system of collective security. That speech met with a large measure of agreement in this House, and it is a plan which I hope will be adhered to, because I think it is the only policy on which it is possible to get any degree of unity in the country. But we cannot implement that policy without commitments within the system of collective security. I think it would help matters in the country if we could have a little more precision and definition in all these questions. They have been described as being fluid. I think that "fluid" is perhaps the description for it, but I wonder what is the line of demarcation between fluidity and confusion.
I pass to a brief consideration of the recommendation in paragraph 6 of the Royal Commission's Report. The Commission recommend that the Government should assume control and responsibility for the arms trade and manufacture in this country. I find very great difficulty in understanding exactly what is the attitude of the Government towards that proposal. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough


(Mr. Griffith) the Minister for Coordination of Defence said the Government would require very cogent reasons for acting upon paragraph 6 of the report.

The MINISTER for the COORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): I was then talking about a Ministry of Supply as indicated by my right hon. Friend who sits below the Gangway.

Mr. WHITE: That is one point on which I hope for information. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his elucidation so far. It seems to me that the Debate has been considerably confused as between the recommendations of the Commission in paragraph 6 and the advocacy of a Ministry of Supply. It is very difficult to understand how it is possible to take action upon paragraph 6 without setting up what is in effect a Ministry of Supply. I am sure the whole House will be glad to have a little more light on that particular point. The, right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Coordination of Defence, after paying a compliment to his late chief, the Chairman of the Commission, who was selected with very great care by the Government of the time, did criticise the evidence of some of those who had given evidence in relation to the suggestions which were finally approved in paragraph 6. It was the duty of the Commission appointed by the Government to consider that evidence. They considered it and reached certain conclusions, and it is upon those conclusions that we ask for action by the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would welcome an opportunity of considering the Commission's recommendations. Which of them had he in mind when he made that statement? Was it paragraph 6 or the question of a Ministry of Supply, or was it the recommendations as a whole? The right hon. Gentleman added that there was a body of men well qualified to consider these matters who were in fact considering them at the present time. The House would be glad to know who those gentlemen are, having regard to the importance of the matter. Are they one of the numerous committees of which we have heard, a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, or a subcommittee of the Cabinet I Who is it

that is devoting time and energy to consideration of these important matters 7 We shall be glad to know precisely what it is they are considering.
Coming to the later stage of the speech of the Minister, I know he said that the Government would require cogent reasons before setting up a Ministry of Supply, that that question would;have to be considered and reviewed over and over again, that it would no doubt be considered within the next few weeks. I think we are entitled to ask just where we stand with regard to the matter. Are the Government now considering the question of setting up a Ministry of Supply? The First Lord at a later stage in the Debate said that if we set up a Minister or Ministry of Supply without adequate powers it would be worse than useless. The whole House will agree with him on that point. The First Lord went on to say that if a Ministry of Supply were set up now it would need to have such powers that it would revolutionise industry and throw the ordinary processes of commerce out of gear, and would in fact be most disastrous. That would, of course, be a misuse or an abuse of power. But the Royal Commission itself laid great emphasis upon the fact that if there is to be conscription of industry in time of war the problems related to that task should be faced and faced quickly, and it is very difficult to see what body can better face those problems than the body which will ultimately have to exercise the responsibility in war.
We are already aware from what has happened in the Nuffield incident that the present system is not working smoothly, that the dangers of interrupting the industrial life of the country are taking place. There are already evidences here and there of jams, which may have a serious result on the industrial life of the country. If we have to face again the calamity of war it will be of vital importance that plans shall have been made to enable the everyday life of the people to be continued as far as possible, and that the normal industrial processes of the country should be kept intact. On all these matters there seems to be great confusion and a great lack of precision. We have moved our Amendment with the idea of action being taken in these matters and we ask for further elucidation of them. I have mentioned


briefly only one or two points of the Commission's Report to which we attach importance. There ire many others, such as that with regard to the transference of civil servants into positions in civil industry, on which I do not wish to delay the House. We attach importance to them but they are minor matters. What we ask for is action on the report.

4.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I should very much have liked to have spoken on the subject of a Minister of Supply and about the shadow organisation of industry, but time is very short and to-night, if I may, I would like to concentrate on one point. It is a point upon which I feel very strongly—that of the Fleet Air Arm. The case has been stated with all the force with which it could be stated by two gallant Admirals here, and although it is a hackneyed theme I think it would be wrong in a Debate like this to let two such speeches go by default without an answer. I am one of those who have seen this fight going on for many years. I saw the birth of the Royal Flying Corps, which at the time comprised both Army and Navy. Yet the attitude of the Navy at that time was that they did not want anything to do with the air; they despised it and rejected it. It was not until war actually started, when they noticed that the Flying Corps side of the Army was going ahead, that they started competitive buying in building up a, type of air force which was prejudicial to the Army side, with the result that we found at Dunkirk many machines which we would very much have liked in the Army but were unable to get. That scandal was eventually solved by the creation of the Air Board.
I want to give an illustration of what I might call the battleship mind in the North of France. When the Navy decided to bombard the Belgian coast they had eight squadrons of aeroplanes at Dunkirk; and yet to observe the fire of monitors from the sea they put observers into the sea on tripods, to observe shells falling the other side of the hill, and all the time the eight squadrons were doing nothing. That was the Admiralty mind. It is the battleship mind and it is a mind that will never change. Why is it that there is this bitterness of the Admiralty

against the Air Ministry? It goes far, deeper than merely having control over your own officers upon your own ships. One of our gallant admirals says he only wants control of the aircraft floating on the water. But the demand goes further than that. It crept across to the squadrons on land. The Navy asked later for flying boats. It wants the whole defence of everything flying.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: It wants control of the fighting machines which work in co-operation with the units of the Fleet on purely naval matters, naval operations. That is what it wants. We do not want to glorify the Navy. We want adequate defence.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am quite aware of what the hon. and gallant Member said. What I am saying is perfectly true. One hon. and gallant Member wants control of the machines on ships and another one wants control of the squadrons on land. In the old days the defence of this country was vested in the Navy. They were the "sure shield." The Admiralty were the spoilt darlings of the gods, able to impose their will upon Governments and Cabinets because they held the safety of the country in their hands. That was the old blue-water school, with which the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) had so much to do. We have now changed to the grey skies school. Everybody knows perfectly well that no longer is the Navy our first line of defence, and it is an astonishing thing for the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence in a long speech to bring up an old anachronism and say that the Navy it still our first line of defence. It is out of date; and it is ridiculous that a Member of the Government should say such a thing. Everyone knows perfectly well that London and all our industrial areas could be disorganised at the start of hostilities, and our fleet, make it as big as you like, remain in the north of Scotland and be as much good to us as a lot of seaweed. Let us get these things perfectly clear. Everybody will understand except old Admirals.
The Admiralty will do anything to get their power back. We have had four inquiries into this matter since the War, and every one has ccme down on the side of not dividing our Air Force into


three parts. Nobody will accuse me of not being an enthusiast of the air, but I have never said that you can win a war by the air alone. You cannot impose your will by the air That has to be done finally by the foot soldier. But everything depends on the first clash in the air. Things are not going to happen in the old-fashioned way. You cannot now mobilise for weeks, send your fleet here and there and assume this and that, for the whole thing will be a crushing calamity at the start, and whoever wins in that first clash in the air has this astonishing advantage, a progressive superiority. Once you can win that you can control the manufacture of your enemy's aircraft; and your control in the air becomes more and more complete. It is under these conditions that the older services will then have to work. If you lose the fight in the air your older services, the Army and the Navy, will never operate efficiently. These are considerations with which everyone must agree.
I do not think anybody among the older politicians has realised the peril of the air so much as the Prime Minister. He has always been alarmed at our position, and yet when we are struggling as hard as any country has ever struggled to produce the machines by every means we can, along comes the Admiralty and says, "Give us part of your Air Force to operate with the Fleet." That is to say, in a crisis we should divide our Air Force. It is a most astonishing proposal. I have read with great interest the pamphlet which justifies, apparently, the construction of two new battleships on the basis that other people are building battleships and we should do the same. I am not prepared to dispute that. Let the Admiralty have their battleships and take them as far away as possible so that they do not come to any harm—that is what they always do with battleships. But I should like the House to notice the somewhat unconscious humour of the Admiralty, that although nobody else can do any harm to our battleships from the air, they are keen to get a larger air fleet to harm enemy battleships.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: That is a very small point.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I have referred to the speed at which this first clash will take place, and I hope

that I have shown that the first clash in the air will really be the dominating factor in operations afterwards. At the time of that first clash we shall want every machine it is possible to get, and if we are going to pander to this desire of the Navy for a share of the Air Forces then there is no answer to the Army doing the same thing. They did make that claim once. We can be sure of this, that the last 200 or 300 machines will really turn the scale at the critical moment. If you can win in the air, the older services will be able to operate. You can then turn the whole of your Air Force to helping the Navy in their operations and to helping the Army in their operations, as was done in the last War, but to divide your resources at the beginning seems to me one of the most fatal mistakes you can make. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not make any more speeches of the kind he made the other day. They may sound very nice within sight of the waves of Paddington Baths, but I hope he will realise that they are out of date.
The Prime Minister said some time ago that this question was settled. I hope he will say it again to-night, and will not be bullied. Ministers and Governments have been bullied on this particular question before by threatened resignations of First Sea Lords. I hope the Prime Minister will not be afraid of that sort of thing. And I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that at a time of crisis in the history of this country, when every machine is wanted, they are doing a great disservice by making speeches which would split up our Air Force in time of war.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) is always extremely interesting in these Debates. He has really staged a battle between the bomb and the battleship, and I think the bomb has the better of the contest. As he has dealt with several points with which I had intended to deal, I shall be able to curtail my remarks. The Debate has arisen on an Amendment dealing with the report of the Royal Commission on the manufacture of and trade in arms. It is not much use saying anything at this juncture, because the Government have not yet considered that report. I think it is a most disappointing document.


Events are running ahead of theories. In France they are actually proceeding to take over the private manufacture of arms, and in Czechoslovakia the great Skoda Works are being taken over. In view of these events the Government perhaps will look upon this report with a more realistic outlook and will see that other people are moving. We had a long speech the other day from the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. It was, to my mind, a speech mainly of a Minister of Supply. I cannot say that I was very satisfied with it. A great deal of criticism can be made with regard to the whole of the Government's plans for the provision of aircraft, and I am doubtful whether there has not been great loss caused by the failure to enlist the whole of the aircraft industry.
A great deal has been said already with regard to supply and I want, therefore, to offer some remarks on general policy. There is always a danger in these Debates that instead of discussing the technical question of defence we should discuss foreign policy, but I do not intend to fall into that trap. I want to regard this as a matter of the proper and most efficient provision for defence. I take it that the Government have resolved on making large expansions of the fighting services. I am not going to discuss that question now; I want to consider the way in which they are doing it. We ought to examine whether these forces are calculated to achieve the object, whether they are efficiently provided, and whether they are economically provided. The Minister for the Coordination of Defence made a speech dealing mainly with supply. In fact, throughout his speech one could realise that he does not regard himself as a co-ordinator of defence, but mainly as engaged in assisting in the business of supply. The line he took was that consideration of matters of defence should be left to the experts. He said that he did not want to appear as an amateur strategist; it was easy to criticise, and he suggested that everybody who criticised what is being done for defence from the point of view of strategy is an amateur strategist who is talking about things he does not understand. I daresay that is the case, but history has shown that very often experts do not understand either. It is our duty to examine these matters, and

not shelter behind the supposed views of the experts.
It might have been different perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech had given us some general defence doctrine, some co-ordinated view as to how defence was being achieved. He did not do that, but gave us the reflections of controversies, echoes of which we have heard to-day, and a jumble of conflicting doctrines. Therefore, I make no apology for trying to examine, entirely as an amateur, the strategic conceptions behind defence. Before we indulge in this enormous expenditure we must have some general strategic conceptions. My first complaint against the Government is that they are making a purely quantitative increase of arms. They have taken the Services as they found them and have added a certain amount to the particular kinds of arms that existed. They have put forward the sort of idea that is expressed on the Continent—" Every extra man, every extra gun, makes you safer." That is not the case. It is not absolutely true, and it is not true when one considers what are the conditions of modern warfare. The mere piling up of numbers will not make us safe.
Let me consider what are the conceptions of the Government. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey dealt with one of those conceptions. In his speech on Tuesday last, the Minister for the Coordination of Defence said:
The Navy is the first line of defence." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1936; col. 727, Vol. 317.]
I suggest that that shows at once a failure to realise the conditions of the problem which has to be dealt with. There are no lines of defence in the old sense: in an era of air warfare there is no such thing as a first line of defence. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say that we must have an overwhelming Navy. That is the Government's first conception of defence, which, as the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey said, is the old pre-air conception of Britain with an overwhelming Navy. Then there is the Army. The right hon. Gentleman gave the House a description of the various tasks which the Army has to perform—tasks which cannot be performed by one and the same Army equipped for all the different tasks. But I was disturbed by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman obviously contemplated that


this country might again indulge in mass warfare on the Continent, because he said that we
would like to think that we could keep our Army at home to defend our shores, but our strategic position, if I am to be frank, does not permit us to do that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1936; col. 732, Vol. 317.]
The right hon. Gentleman certainly based his conception on the fact that we have an Army which might expand and become a great Continental army again. Thirdly, there is the Air Force. The right hon. Gentleman said:
It is our aim and purpose to develop as a deterrent as powerful a striking force as we can in the air."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1936; col. 727, Vol. 317.]
He also dealt with air defences. The new relation of these various functions does not present us with a co-ordinated plan of defence; on the contrary, I think it shows that such a plan is non-existent. In a scheme for co-ordinating defence, one must get a decision as to the outstanding danger against which it is necessary to guard. One must decide how that menace is to be met, and how provision can best be made. In pre-war days we had a clear decision in this country on that matter, and it was that the Navy was our defence. The vital thing was the protection of our sea communications and our commerce, and the inviolability of these Islands. Consequently, we never tried to build up fortifications on land in this country or large standing armies, nor could we afford to do so. But it seems from the speech of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence that we now have to "go all out" in all three elements. In those circumstances, I do not wonder that he felt that the material strain on the country is stupendous.
I suggest that in any defence plan one has to consider what are the modern conditions. I notice that throughout the right hon. Gentleman's speech the general conception seemed to be that we stood by ourselves, and there was no suggestion that we might have allies in the League. But I contend that of the dangers which we have to face to-day, the outstanding one is the danger from the air. It is useless to talk in the old language about command of the sea. We can have command of the sea, we can have our commerce intact, and our lines of communication unbroken, but if we have no country to and from which those communications

go, it is not much good having the commerce. I suggest that we can never become strong in any defence, whether we are standing for defence by ourselves or collective defence, until we have decided what is the vital thing that we have to aim at first of all. I do not think we have such a decision at present.
In all wars the one essential thing is the preservation or the destruction of the will of the contestant. In wars in the past there were fights by land and fights by sea, but the object was always to conquer the will of the contestant. I contend that we are to-day in an entirely different position from that in which we were before, because it is possible to-day to conquer the will of the contestant by direct action—by air action—in our case against London, and in the case of other countries against their capitals. Until that menace has been dealt with, it is useless to talk about the defence of the Empire or of preserving lines of communication. Everything goes if that menace is not dealt with, and I suggest that that has been proved ever since the end of the War. Yet, since the War, we have spent £776,000,000 on the Navy, £582,000,000 on the Army and £225,000,000 on the Air Force. That is what is called unilateral disarmament. But I am calling attention to the proportions which go to the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. This year £81,000,000 goes to the Navy, £55,000,000 to the Army and £50,000,000 to the Air Force.
In these matters we have to be realists. If there is to be another war—and the whole of our work must be directed to preventing it—it will be a war against the civilian population. The Prime Minister has called the attention of the the country to that—he did it again the other night—and I think it is right to do so. During the last few years we have had the spectacle of what happened in Abyssinia, and we now have the spectacle of what is going on in Spain. I do not think that in pre-War days we would ever have thought that the time would come when there would be a country in which there are people importing an alien race from another country to cut down their own fellow-countrymen, bombing their own capital and killing their men and women in the most ruthless way. We have to recognise the fact that warfare has come to that, and in face of what has occurred in Spain and in


Abyssinia we have to recognise that the air is the dominant weapon—the bomb is the dominant weapon. But is that recognized? I think the Navy still believes the gun is the dominant weapon, and I am not sure that the Army does not think it is the bayonet. We have had a belated Inquiry on battleships. It is extraordinary that that inquiry was not held long ago. I am bound to say that the most definite thing I can get out of the Report is that apparently a battleship may possibly be able to stand up to an air attack, but, incidentally, apparently no other vessels are reasonably likely to be able to stand up to an air attack. The smaller vessels are unprotected and the Mercantile Marine is unprotected, and I have seen no suggestion as to how they are to be protected.
What is the Government's plan for dealing with an air attack? When we come to deal with the air, we get a different conception—that of effective deterrents. It is said that the only way to prevent an air attack is to have an overwhelmingly superior force which will prevent that attack. Do the Government really believe in that doctrine or not? If they really believe in it, that is what they ought to be aiming at. If they really believe that the way to stop war is to have an overwhelming Air Force, they should be working to that end, and not spending all that money on the Navy. The controversy is still going on as to whether the air is the main thing or whether it is only subsidiary to the Army and Navy. I think there is very great danger in the theory of building up a great fighting Air Force with a view to holding in check some other great fighting air force. I disbelieve entirely the idea that peace can be obtained by having a number of armed forces becoming stronger and stronger and watching each other. Sooner or later the time will come when some expert on one side or the other will think that it is about time to strike before the others do so. I think there is a terrible danger in piling up forces in that way.
We ought to have a very clear answer in this matter from the Government, for the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has already said that we are to have this crushing burden of expenditure. Is that crushing burden of defence to go on and

on, and crush us? We have had no real consideration of the problems of modern defence, but only separate consideration by the different Services. We have been told that it is all being done by the Committee of Imperial Defence. I do not believe it is being done by them and I do not believe it can be done by them; I do not believe the Committee of Imperial Defence is competent to do it—it is an advisory body. The right hon. Gentleman said that these problems of the three Services are being worked out jointly at every Staff College and at the Imperial Defence College. I dare say they are at the Imperial Defence College, but are they at the Staff Colleges? Are those colleges working in terms of defence by the three Services? If so, why have they on their curriculum the study of the Russo-Japanese war of 30 years ago?
How is it possible to prepare for defence in a war in which the air is dominant by studying a campaign which took place before air forces entered into the question? I do not think there has been any real consideration on those lines. I suggest that the same thing applies in the case of the Army. I think that any one who read the extremely able articles on the Army by the "Times" correspondent, or who has followed the course of events in the Army, will have grave doubts as to whether those who control the Army really know what they mean to make of it, whether they want a mass Army or whether they want a mechanised Army. They are still discussing the Cardwell System. It seems to me that all these things are allowed to drift because there is no co-ordination of defence problems. The result is that we do not get the strength we want, and there is enormous waste.
I would like to draw attention to one peculiar fact: it is that in all these discussions we hear nothing of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I think it is most surprising how, in this House, the British Commonwealth has faded out of the question and has strayed from our consideration of defence. I am almost amazed at the indifference of the old-time Imperialists to events of the last two years in the Mediterranean. They have ignored things that would have set them on their hind legs 20 years ago. And not only that—the conception seems


to be that this country will stand by itself. I suggest that this country built up its Empire by the fact that it was invulnerable from attack except by sea, and that it had command of the sea. Now it has become the most vulnerable part of the whole British Commonwealth. It is extremely dangerous to have almost all your arms and your manufacturing plant in the place which is the most dangerous part of your Commonwealth, and in any properly co-ordinated plan of defence consideration ought to be given to the use of a greater depth of territory.
If you are to have an overwhelming Air Force, it would be far safer to have that Air Force held back and further away from the possibility of attack, because if your overwhelming Air Force is too near the possible source of attack it may be knocked out as the result of an attack upon it by a Power which is less scrupulous than you are. There is no attempt at the present time to build up your Commonwealth of Nations as a co-ordi-nated group of armed peoples, collectively engaged in defence. You are proposing to-day, in circumstances which are totally different from those of the past, a concentration of your most essential defences in the most dangerous part of the Commonwealth, that is, in the British Isles. I should like to know how far these considerations are being taken into account. It seems to me that latterly there has been a tendency to think of these islands as something by themselves and apart from the rest of the Empire.
My final word is this. We on this side believe that you cannot secure isolated defence of these islands. We think that you must work for collective security, and we are sure that the defence of the whole British Commonwealth depends ultimately on the defence of these islands. We are as much concerned as anyone to see that that defence is strong, but the strength of your defence depends, not upon numbers, not upon the mere piling up of forces and on being able to say "We have this" or "We have that." It can only be secured by a careful consideration of all your fighting Services and a careful consideration, too, of your foreign policy. I have said to this House before that I am profoundly dissatisfied with the organisation of defence. I do not pretend to be an

expert in these matters, but I read all I can upon what I consider to be defence, and I certainly think that in all the discussions that we have had, the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence has come before us as a Minister for coordination of supply. I believe that your supply must be completely wasted, unless you have, first, made some provision for the co-ordination of strategy, and unless you have some common doctrine of defence.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that this would be the occasion on which to embark upon a detailed argument either upon the question of bombs versus battleships, or upon that of the Fleet Air Arm to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) has made reference. But I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend helped his cause at all. I have never heard the case for the Air Ministry stated in terms anything like so high as those which he used. As far as one can see, the Fleet would have to contemplate the possibility of the whole of their aviation being withdrawn from them at the moment when they were engaged in operations of the most serious character with other fleets which were thoroughly equipped. Anything more likely to arouse the admirals to collective security, I can hardly imagine. For my part, I had always hoped that if the Admiralty recovered control of the Fleet Air Arm they would, at this juncture, bring a new river or even rivulet of thought and of resources of expansion to bear upon the air, and that the total air resources of our country would be greatly strengthened thereby. However, I am not going into that question, because I think we shall find on the Navy or the Air Estimates opportunities to thrash it out in more detail.
I have, with some of my hon. Friends, put an Amendment on the Paper. It is the same as the Amendment which I submitted two years ago, and I have put it in exactly the same terms because I thought it would be a good thing to remind the House of what has happened in these two years. Our Amendment in November, 1934, was the culmination of a long series of efforts by various private Members and by the Conservative party in the country, to warn His Majesty's


Government of the dangers to Europe and to this country which were coming upon us through the vast process of German rearmament then already in full swing. The speech which I made on that occasion was much censured as being alarmist by leading Conservative newspapers, and I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) congratulated the Prime Minister, who was then Lord President of the Council, on having so satisfactorily demolished my extravagant fears.
What would have been said, I wonder, if I could two years ago have forecast to the House the actual course of events I Suppose we had then been told that Germany would spend for two years £800,000,000 a year upon warlike preparations; that her industries would be organised for war, as the industries of no country have ever been; that by breaking all Treaty engagements, she would create a gigantic air force and an army based on universal compulsory service, which by the present time, in 1936, amounts to upwards of 39 divisions of highly equipped troops, including mechanised divisions of enormous and almost unmeasured strength, and that behind all this there lay millions of armed and trained men, for whom the formations and equipment are rapidly being prepared to form another 80 divisions in addition to those already perfected. Suppose we had then known that by now, two years of compulsory military service would be the rule, with a preliminary year of training in labour camps; that the Rhineland would be occupied by powerful forces and fortified with great skill and that Germany would be building with our approval, signified by Treaty, a large new submarine fleet.
Suppose we had also been able to foresee the degeneration of the foreign situation, our quarrel with Italy, the Italo-German association, the Belgian declaration about neutrality—which, if the worst interpretation of it proves to be true, so greatly affects the security of this country—and the disarray of the smaller Powers of Central Europe. Suppose all that had been forecast—why, no one would have believed in the truth of such a nightmare tale. Yet just two years have gone by and we see it all in

broad daylight. Where shall we be this time two years? I hesitate now to predict. Let me say, however, that I will not accept the mood of panic or of despair. There is another side, a side which must be studied, because it in no way derogates from the urgency which ought to animate our military preparations. Here let me also say that I do not for a moment suggest that Germany has any idea of attacking France or Britain. I am not dealing with criticisms of the intentions of nations. I am dealing only with the actual balance of armed forces which, in no way, determines the intentions of nations, but may conceivably enable them to carry out any intentions which they form.
The British Navy is, and will continue to be, incomparably the strongest in Europe. The French Army will certainly be, for a good many months to come, at least equal in numbers and superior in maturity to the German Army. The British and French Air Forces together are a very different proposition from either of those forces considered separately. While no one can prophesy, it seems to me that the Western democracies, provided they are knit closely together, would be tolerably safe for a considerable number of months ahead. No one can say to a month or two, or even a quarter or two, how long this period of comparative equipoise will last. But it seems certain that during the year 1937 the German Army will become very much more numerous than the French Army, and very much more efficient than it is now. It seems certain that the German Air Force will continue to improve upon the long lead which it already has over us, particularly in respect of long-distance bombing machines. The year 1937 will certainly be marked by a great increase in the adverse factors which only intense efforts on our part can, to any effective extent, countervail.
I do not pursue that aspect of the subject. I only mention it because I am anxious that the House should see the frame in which I wish to place the picture which I am about to try to draw. But for the reason I have given I believe that the efforts at rearmament which France and Britain are making will not, by themselves, be sufficient. I believe that it will be necessary for the


Western democracies, even at some extension of their risks, to gather round them all the elements of collective security or, if you prefer to call it so, combined defensive strength against aggression—the phrase which I prefer—which can be assembled on the basis of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Thus I hope we may succeed again in achieving a position of superior force and then will be the time not to repeat the folly which we committed when we were all-powerful and supreme, but to invite Germany to make a common cause with us in assuaging the griefs of Europe and opening a new door to peace and disarmament.
I now turn more directly to the issues of this Debate. Let us examine our own position. No one can refuse his sympathy to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. From time to time my right hon. Friend lets fall phrases or facts which show that he realises, more than anyone else on that bench it seems to me, the danger in which we stand. One such phrase came from his lips the other night:
Eheu! fugaces, Posthume, Posthume. Where are the years that are lost to me, lost to me.
I think my right hon. Friend used another phrase, and I think it characteristic that this heart cry should have come from him in the form of a Biblical text. He spoke of "the years that the locust bath eaten." Let us see which are these "years which the locust hath eaten," even if we do not pry too closely in search of the locusts who have eaten these precious years. For this purpose we must look into the past. From the year 1932, certainly from the beginning of 1933, when Herr Hitler came into power, it was general public knowledge in this country that serious rearmament had begun in Germany. There was a change in the situation. Three years ago, at the Conservative Conference at Birmingham—I apologise to the House for mentioning a purely party gathering, but it has relevance to a serious argument—that vigorous and faithful servant of this country, Lord Lloyd, moved the following resolution:
That this conference desires to record its grave anxiety in regard to the inadequacy of the provisions made for Imperial Defence.

That was three years ago, and I see, from the "Times" report of that occasion, that I said:
During the last four or five years the world had grown gravely darker.… We had steadily disarmed, partly with a sincere desire to give a lead to other countries, and partly through the severe financial pressure of the time. But a change must now be made. We must not continue longer on a course in which we alone were growing weaker while every other nation was growing stronger.
The resolution was passed unanimously, with only a rider informing the Chancellor of the Exchequer that all necessary burdens of taxation would be cheerfully borne. There were no locusts there, at any rate. I am very glad to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister restored to his vigour, and to learn that he has been recuperated by his rest and also, as we hear, rejuvenated. It has been my fortune to have ups and downs in my political relations with him, the downs on the whole predominating perhaps, but at any rate we have always preserved agreeable personal relations, which, so far as I am concerned, are greatly valued. I am sure my right hon. Friend would not wish, in his conduct of public affairs, that there should be any shirking from putting the real issues of criticism which arise, and I shall certainly proceed in that sense. My right hon. Friend has had all the power for a good many years, and therefore there rests upon him inevitably the main responsibility for everything that has been done, or not done, and also the responsibility for what is to be done or not done now. So far as the air is concerned, this responsibility was assumed by him in a very direct personal manner even before he became Prime Minister. I must recall the words which he used in the Debate on 8th March, 1934, nearly three years ago. In answer to an appeal which I made to him, both publicly and privately, he said:
Any Government of this country—a National Government more than any, and this Government—will see to it that in air strength and air power this country shall no longer be in a position inferior to any country within striking distance of our shores."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 8th March, 1934; col. 2078, Vol. 286.]
Well, Sir, I accepted that solemn promise, but some of my friends, like my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) and my right hon. and gallant


Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest), wanted what the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, in another state of being, would have called "further and better particulars," and they raised a debate after dinner, when the then Lord President of the Council came down to the House and really showed less than his usual urbanity in chiding those Members for even venturing to doubt the intention of the Government to make good in every respect the pledge which he had so solemnly given in the afternoon. I do not think that that responsibility was ever more directly assumed in a more personal manner. My right hon. Friend was not successful in discharging that task, and he admitted with manly candour a year later that he had been led into error upon the important question of the relative strength of the British and German air power.
No doubt as a whole His Majesty's Government were very slow in accepting the fact, the unwelcome fact, of German rearmament. They still clung to the policy of one-sided disarmament. It was one of those experiments, we are told, which had to be what is called, to use a vulgarism, "tried out," like the experiment of non-military sanctions against Italy had to be tried out. Both experiments have now been tried out, and Ministers are accustomed to plume themselves upon the very clear results of those experiments. They are held to prove conclusively that the policies subjected to the experiments were all wrong, utterly foolish, and never to be tried again, and the very same men who were foremost in urging those experiments are now foremost in proclaiming and denouncing the fallacies upon which they were based. They have bought their knowledge, they lave bought it dear, they have bought it at our expense, but at any rate let us be duly thankful that they now at last have that knowledge.
But even after the Government had realised that a world of armed and arming menace was springing up around them, no measures were taken for a long time equal to the situation or to make up for the years that were lost. Shortly after my right hon. Friend became Prime Minister, in July, 1935, he began to make very serious statements about the need for rearmament. He laid his case here

in the House, and he fought, and largely won, the General Election upon that issue, but there again it was very difficult to see what he really intended, because while, on the one hand, he somewhat exaggerated the weakness of the Navy and pledged himself to the creation of an Air Force equal to that of the most powerful country within striking distance, he also made the statement:
I give you my word there will be no great armaments.
And again he said, on 29th October, 1935:
There has not been, there is not, and there will not be any question of huge armaments or materially increased forces.
Frankly, I do not understand what that could have meant, because an Air Force equal to the gigantic force being constructed in Germany would certainly involve a huge expenditure on armaments and a vast increase in our force, and I confess that I, like other Members, was much baffled by those statements. In July, 1935, before the General Election, there was a very strong movement in this House in favour of the appointment of a Minister to concert the action of the three fighting Services. The House may remember the Debate, and after the Debate I believe nearly 200 Members of the Conservative party signified to the Prime Minister a very strong feeling that this step or something like it should be taken. My right hon. Friend, making an important contribution to the Debate, encouraged this expression of opinion and seemed at that time to be on the verge of taking a decision favourable to it.
Moreover, at that time the Departments of State were all engaged in drawing up the large schemes of rearmament in all branches which have been laid before us in the White Paper and upon which we are now engaged. One would have thought that that was the time when this new Minister or co-ordinator was most necessary. He was not, however, in fact appointed until nearly nine months later, in March, 1936. No explanation has yet been given to us why these nine months were wasted before the taking of what is now an admittedly necessary measure. The Prime Minister dilated the other night, no doubt very properly, on the great advantages which had flowed from the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. Every argument used to show how useful has been


the work which he has done accuses the failure to appoint him nine months earlier, when inestimable advantages would have accrued to us by the saving of this long period.
Why, Sir, if the necessary orders for the machine tools and other measures which the Minister told us in July of this year he had taken had been put in hand before the General Election, when the Prime Minister, by all his public statements, was alive to the condition of our defences, we should have saved much more than nine months. In this particular case, moreover, no great expenditure was required. A couple of millions judiciously laid out upon the preliminary work would have been of measureless advantage to us now and would not have raised any serious issue either in the politics of this country or abroad. I cannot understand why this was not done, and I hope that the Prime Minister, in his speech this evening, will give us some explanation. I have heard it said that the Government had no mandate for rearmament until the General Election. Such a doctrine is wholly inadmissible. The responsibility of Ministers for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact the prime object for which Governments come into existence. The Prime Minister had the command of enormous majorities in both Houses of Parliament ready to vote for any necessary measures of defence. The country has never yet failed to do its duty when the true facts have been put before it, and I cannot see where there is a defence for this delay.
When at last, in March, after all the delays, the Prime Minister eventually appointed the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, the arrangement of duties was so ill-conceived that no man could possibly discharge them with efficiency or even make a speech about them without obvious embarrassment. I have repeatedly pointed out the obvious mistake in organisation of jumbling together—and everyone in the House is practically agreed upon it—the functions of defence with those of a Minister of Supply. The proper organisation, let me repeat, is four Departments—the Navy, the Army, the Air and the Ministry of Supply, with the Minister for the Coordination of Defence over the four, exercising a general supervision, concerting their actions, and assigning the high

priorities of manufacture in relation to some comprehensive strategic conception. The House is familiar with the many requests and arguments which have been made to the Government to create a Ministry of Supply. These arguments have received a powerful reinforcement from another angle in the report of the Royal Commission on Arms Manufacture.
The first work of this new Parliament and the first work of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, if he had known as much about the subject when he was appointed as he does now, would have been to set up a Ministry of Supply which should, step by step, have taken over the whole business of the design and manufacture of all the supplies needed by the Air Force and the Army, and everything needed for the Navy except warships, heavy ordnance, torpedoes and one or two very small ancillaries. All the rest of the industries of Britain should have been surveyed from a general integral standpoint, and all existing resources utilised so far as was necessary to execute the programme. Such a Ministry would, of course, have required an Act of Parliament to clothe it with adequate powers. The first part of the Act would have regulated the powers of the Ministry and the conditions of industry during the period of emergency in time of peace. I do not think there ought to be at such a time the situation of the individual manufacturer saying he will not do this or he will not do that. Some interference with the normal trade of the country would be inevitable, but for myself I have never proposed to institute anything like war conditions in time of peace. The second part of the Measure would prescribe the conditions which would be brought into operation on the outbreak of war. The character of these conditions is very well foreshadowed in the report of the Royal Commission, and among them should certainly be the embodiment in legislation of the principle, "Take the profit out of war." This part of the Act would only come into operation upon the vote of both Houses because of supreme national emergency.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence argued as usual against a Ministry of Supply. The arguments which he


used were very weighty, and even ponderous—it would disturb and delay existing programmes; it would do more harm than good; it would upset the life and industry of the country; it would destroy the export trade and demoralise the finances at the moment when they were most needed; it would turn this country into one vast munitions camp. Certainly these are massive arguments, if they are true. One would have thought that they would carry conviction to any man who believed them. But then my right hon. Friend went on somewhat surprisingly to say, "The decision is not final." It would be reviewed again in a few weeks. What will you know in a few weeks about this matter that you do not know now, that you ought not to have known a year ago and have not been told any time in the last six months? What is going to happen in the next few weeks which will invalidate all these magnificent arguments by which you have been overwhelmed and suddenly make it worth your while to paralyse the export trade, to destroy finances and to turn the country into a great munitions camp?
The First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech the other night went even further. He said, "We are always reviewing the position." Everything, he assured us, is entirely fluid. I am sure that that is true. Anyone can see what the position is. The Government simply cannot make up their mind, or they cannot get the Prime Minister to make up his mind. So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent. So we go on preparing more months and years—precious, perhaps vital to the greatness of Britain—for the locusts to eat. They will say to me, "A Minister of Supply is not necessary, for all is going well." I deny it. "The position is satisfactory." It is not true. "All is proceeding according to plan." We know what that means.
Let me give the House a few illustrations. When we last debated this matter the Minister for Defence, in effect, used the following argument against the Ministry of Supply. It is common ground, he said, that the bulk of the naval requirements should be left to the Admiralty. The air contracts are being so well

managed that the process cannot well be bettered. There remains, therefore, only the munitions for the Army, the inference being that it would not be worth while to set up a Ministry of Supply for them. My right hon. Friend did not rely so much on that argument in his speech on Tuesday. One of its elements would no longer carry much conviction in the House. The revelations for which Lord Nuffield is responsible—I am not going into the personal aspect nor into the particular technical merits—and also the public complaints of a company called the Alvis Company are important, not so much in themselves, but because, like a lightning flash, they have illumined a confused landscape of Air and Army production. We do not even know at what period the Minister for the coordination of Government defence—[Laughter]—I mean the co-ordination of national defence—was aware of the dispute between Lord Nuffield and the Air Minister, or what efforts he made to ward it off before it became public property. Nor do we know how long ago it was that he knew the large capacity for aeroplane engines existing in Lord Nuffield's works.
We know, however, that Lord Weir was quite unaware of the productive capacity of the Alvis Company. That is a disquieting fact when we are assured that everything has been taken into consideration. I must say a word about Lord Weir's position. He is a man for whom I have the greatest personal regard, and I have known him for a quarter of a century. He occupies a very anomalous position where he has enormous influence, does an immense amount of work, and his name is paraded with great frequency by the Government without his having either formal authority or official responsibility. If there are public misgivings of any kind, they are dismissed with the assurance that Lord Weir has it in hand. If, on the other hand, things go wrong—and they are in some respects going wrong—and the public asks who is to blame, Lord Weir can answer with perfect justice, "I have no responsibility. I am only working in an honorary advisory capacity without any department or command." I have no hesitation in saying that neither the functions entrusted to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence nor those entrusted to Lord Weir are compatible with any sound system of organisation. I believe that


they have sprung into being as mere expedients from time to time and as reluctant concessions by the Prime Minister to meet the movements of public opinion and the march of events.
Let me give the House another illustration of the confusion prevailing behind the scenes. A British firm some months ago received an order from a French firm for some large bearings which are used in gun lathes. The price was not tempting. The firm had an alternative order for similar bearings for use in civilian rolling mills from Germany, and they therefore declined the French order and accepted the German one—a perfectly normal procedure under the conditions which prevail in this country. Some weeks afterwards the director, by a pure chance, heard that the French firm whose order he had declined was, in fact, executing an order from Woolwich Arsenal for gun lathes. It was then too late to execute the work in England. However, the firm had a branch in the United States. With the greatest speed they accepted the order and succeeded in having it executed over there and delivered the bearings to the French firm, who will in turn deliver them to Woolwich Arsenal. That shows how British industry is being organised. Woolwich Arsenal places an order in France for machinery, the essential part of which has to be manufactured in Britain, but as the British firm is not aware of the British Government's intentions, they decline an order and eventually execute it in the United States, and all returns in the end satisfactorily to the War Office without their having had the slightest idea of the channels through which their action had passed. Then we are told that there is no need for a Ministry of Supply. If you are to use all the resources of this country, everyone giving an order must know exactly the reactions and the effects it will produce.
Let me give another instance. Another British firm is busily engaged in making machine tools for the British Government. Their books are filled for more than a year ahead. At the same time, they are making machine tools for other purchasers and foreign Governments. They are working on an order from the German Government, who are buying machine tools here, for they have such a vast military industry and ours is so rudimentary. This firm has American and foreign shareholders, and without a direct order

from the Government they have not the right to break priority of any contract they are executing. I knew these people in the Ministry of Munitions days. They served us faithfully. Deeply distressed at the position, they came to me and put the facts before me. I may say that I shall be perfectly ready to give the names to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence so that he can see for himself what is the validity of these statements.

Sir T. INSKIP: If my right hon. Friend will be good enough to give me the names I shall be very glad to inquire into the particulars, because I do not know anything at all about the facts. My right hon. Friend has, of course, given me no notice or I could have made some inquiries before he made his statement.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid it would be quite impossible to carry on debate in this House if no statement could be made in debate without previous notice being given to the Minister. Also, I am sure that it would cumber enormously the work of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence if before any speeches were made he had to go through the whole business of seeing what they were before he listened to them, in order that he might prepare himself to answer them. I shall be very glad to give the information to him. I have given this instance as typical—it is only typical, and not a great crime in itself—but typical as, possibly, revealing what is occurring over a much wider area.
Let me come to the Territorial Army. In March of this year I stigmatised a sentence in the War Office Memorandum about the Territorial Army, in which it was said the equipment of the Territorials could not be undertaken until that of the Regular Army had been completed. What has been done about all that? It is certain the evils are not yet removed. I agree whole-heartedly with all that was said by my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) the other day about the Army and the Territorial Force. When I think about what these young men who join the Territorials do, how they come forward, almost alone in the population, and take on a liability to serve anywhere in any part of the


world, not even with a guarantee to serve in their own units; come forward in spite of every conceivable deterrent; come forward, 140,000 of them, although they are still not up to strength—and then find that the Government does not take their effort so seriously that it will even put the proper equipment in their hands, and give them proper weapons, I marvel at their patriotism. It is a marvel; it is also a glory, but a glory we have no right to bestow if, by taking practical measures, we can secure proper and efficient equipment for those who come forward as volunteers.
A friend of mine the other day saw a number of persons engaged in peculiar evolutions, genuflections and gestures in the neighbourhood of London. His curiosity was excited. He wondered whether it was some novel form of gymnastics, or was a new religion—there are new religions which are very popular in some countries nowadays—or whether they were a party of lunatics out for an airing. On approaching closer he learned that they were a Searchlight Company of London Territorials who were doing their exercises as well as they could without having the searchlights. Yet we are told there is no need for a Ministry of Supply. In the manoeuvres of the Regular Army many of the most important new weapons had to be represented by flags and discs. Attention has been drawn to this by the very able military correspondent of the "Times." When we remember how small our land forces are—altogether only a few hundred thousand men—it seems incredible that the very flexible industry of Britain, if properly handled, could not supply them with their modest requirements. In Italy, whose industry is so much smaller, whose wealth and credit are a fraction of this country's, a dictator is able to boast that he has bayonets and equipment for 8,000,000 men. Halve the figure, if you like, and the moral remains equally cogent.
I say the Army lacks almost every weapon which is required for the latest form of modern war. Where are the anti-tank guns, where are the short-distance wireless sets, where the field anti-aircraft guns against low-flying armoured aeroplanes? We want to know

how it is that this country, with its enormous motoring and motor-bicycling public, is not able to have strong mechanised divisions, both Regular and Territorial. Surely, when so much of the interest and the taste of our youth is moving in those mechanical channels, and when the horse is receding, with the days of chivalry, into the past, it ought to be possible to create an army of the size we want fully up to strength and mechanised to the highest degree in the world.
Look at the Tank Corps. The tank was a. British invention. This idea, which has revolutionised the conditions of modern war, was a British idea forced on the War Office by outsiders. Let me say they would have just as hard work to-day to force a new idea on it. I speak from what I know. During the War we had almost a monopoly in, let alone the leadership in, tank warfare, and for several years afterwards we held the foremost place. To England all eyes were turned. All that has gone now. Nothing has been done in the years that the locust has eaten to equip the Tank Corps with new machines. The medium tank which they possess, which in its day was the best in the world, is now long obsolete. Not only in numbers—for there we have never tried to compete with other countries—but in quality these British weapons are now surpassed by those of Germany, Russia, Italy and the United States. All the shell plants and gun plants in the Army, apart from the very small peace-time services, are in an elementary stage. A very long period must intervene before any effectual flow of munitions can be expected, even for the small forces of which we dispose. Still we are told there is no necessity for a Ministry of Supply, no emergency which should induct us to impinge on the normal course of trade. If we go on like this, and I do not see what power can prevent us from going on like this, some day there may be a terrible reckoning, a very terrible reckoning, and those who take the responsibility so entirely upon themselves are either of a hardy disposition or they are incapable of foreseeing the possibilities which may arise.
Now I come to the greatest matter of all, the air. We received on Tuesday


night, from the First Lord of the Admiralty, the assurance that there is no foundation whatever for the statements that we are vastly behindhand with our Air Force Programme. It is clear from that statement that we are behindhand. The only question is, what meaning does the First Lord attach to the word "vastly"? He also used the expression, about the progress of air expansion, that it was "not unsatisfactory." One does not know what his standard is. His standards change from time to time. In that speech of 11th September about the League of Nations there was one standard, and in the Hoare-Laval Pact there was clearly another. One does not know what the standard is. There are many different tests by which the strength and progress of an air force may be judged. I will not attempt to unfold them to the House, except to say: pilots, machines, the power to replenish pilots and machines, the formation of squadrons, the question of equipment, sites, instruments, and bombing gear, and let me add, especially machine-guns in very large numbers. Modern aeroplanes are quite useless for war without all those costly, complicated ancillaries. Are they all properly in step with one another? There is the question of the range of aeroplanes and the bomb-carrying capacity of our aeroplanes, a question which affects not only strategy but, as anyone who has thought about the subject must know, foreign policy as well.
In August last some of us went in a deputation to the Prime Minister in order to express the anxieties which we felt about national defence, and to make a number of statements which we would prefer not to be forced to make in public. I, personally, made a statement on the state of the Air Force to the preparation of which I had devoted several weeks and which, I am sorry to say, took an hour to read. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister listened with his customary exemplary patience. I think I told him beforehand that he is a good listener, and perhaps he will retort that he learned to be when I was his colleague. At any rate, he listened with exemplary patience, and that is always something. During the three months that have passed since then I have re-checked those facts in the light of current events and later knowledge, and were it not for the fact that foreign ears listen to all that is

said here, and if we were in secret session, I would repeat my statement here. And even if only one half were true I am sure the House would consider that a very grave state of emergency existed, and also, I regret to say, a state of things from which a certain degree of mismanagement cannot be excluded. I am not going into any of those details. I make it a rule, as far as I possibly can, not to say anything in this House upon matters which I am not sure is not already known to the General Staffs of foreign countries; but there is one statement of very great importance which the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence made in his speech on Tuesday. He said:
The process of building up squadrons and forming new training units and skeleton squadrons is familiar to everybody connected with the Air Force. The number of squadrons in present circumstances at home to-day, is 80, and that figure includes 16 auxiliary squadrons but excludes the Fleet Air Arm and, of course, does not include the squadrons abroad."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1936; col. 741, Vol. 317.]
From that figure, and the reservations by which it was prefaced, it is possible for the House, and also for foreign countries, to deduce pretty accurately the progress of our Air Force expansion. I feel therefore at liberty to comment on it, and I see that it has been commented on today in the "Daily Telegraph." Parliament was promised a total of 71 new squadrons, making a total of 124 squadrons in the home defence force by 31st March, 1937. This was thought to be the minimum compatible with out safety. At the end of the last financial year our strength was 53 squadrons, including auxiliary squadrons. Therefore, in the 32 weeks which have passed since the financial year began, we have added 28 squadrons, that is to say, less than one new squadron each week. In order to make the progress which Parliament has promised, in order to maintain the programme which was put forward as the minimum, we shall have to add 43 squadrons in the remaining 20 weeks, or over two squadrons a week. The rate at which new squadrons will have to be formed from now till the end of March will have to be three times as fast as hitherto. I do not propose to analyse the composition of the 80 squadrons we now have, but the Minister, in his speech, used a suggestive expression, "skeleton squadrons"—applying at least to a portion of


them—but even if every one of the 80 squadrons had on average strength of 12 aeroplanes, each fitted with war equipment, and the reserves upon which my right hon. Friend dwelt, we should have a total of 960 first line home defence aircraft.
What is the comparable German strength? I am not going to give an estimate and say that the Germans have not got more than a certain number, but I will take it upon myself to say that they most certainly at this moment have not got less than a certain number. Most certainly they have not got less than 1,500 first line aeroplanes, probably more, comprised in not less than 130 or 140 squadrons, including auxiliary squadrons. It must also be remembered that Germany has not got in its squadrons any machine the design and construction of which is more than three years old. It must also be remembered that Germany has specialised in long-distance bombing aeroplanes and that her preponderance in that respect is far greater than any of these figures would suggest.
We were promised most solemnly by the Government that air parity with Germany would be maintained by the home defence forces. At the present time, putting everything at the very best, we are, upon the figures given by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, only about two-thirds as strong as the German Air Force, assuming that I am not very much understating their present strength. [Interruption.] I do not know what the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman means. I said "understating."

Sir T. INSKIP: I wanted to be sure of the argument of my right hon. Friend. I thought he meant to say "overstating."

Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh no. The proportion is two-thirds unless I have understated the German strength, in which case our proportion will be smaller. How then does the First Lord of the Admiralty think it right to say:
On the whole, our forecast of the strength of other Air Forces proves to be accurate; on the other hand, our own estimates have also proved to be accurate.
I am authorised to say that the position is satisfactory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1936; col. 826, Vol. 317.]

I simply cannot understand it. Perhaps the Prime Minister will explain the position. I should like to remind the House that I have made no revelation affecting this country and that I have introduced no new fact in our air defence which does not arise from the figures given by the Minister and from the official estimates that- have been published.
What ought we to do? I know of only one way in which this matter can be carried further. The House ought to demand a Parliamentary inquiry. It ought to appoint six, seven or eight independent Members, responsible, experienced, discreet Members, who have some acquaintance with these matters and are representative of all parties, to interview Ministers and to find out what are, in fact, the answers to a series of questions; then to make a brief report to the House, whether either of reassurance or of suggestion for remedying the shortcomings. That, I think, is what any Parliament worthy of the name would do in these circumstances. Parliaments of the past days in which the greatness of our country was abuilding would never have hesitated. They would have felt they could not discharge their duty to their constituents if they did not satisfy themselves that the safety of the country was being effectively maintained.
The French Parliament, through its committees, has a very wide, deep knowledge of the state of national defence, and I am not aware that their secrets leak out in any exceptional way. There is no reason why our secrets should leak out in any exceptional way. It is because so many members of the French Parliament are associated in one way or another with the progress of the national defence that the French Government were induced to supply, six years ago, upwards of £60,000,000 sterling to construct the Maginot line of fortifications, when our Government was assuring them that wars were over and that France must not lag behind Britain in her disarmament. Even now, I hope that Members of the House of Commons will rise above considerations of party discipline, and will insist upon knowing where we stand in a matter which affects our liberties and our lives. I should have thought that the Government, and above all the Prime Minister, whose load is so


heavy, would have welcomed such a suggestion.
Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have now entered upon a period of danger greater than has befallen Britain since the U-boat campaign was crushed; perhaps, indeed, it is a more grievous period than that, because at that time, at least, we were possessed of the means of securing ourselves and of defeating that campaign. Now we have no such assurance. The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences. We have entered a period in which for more than a year, or a year and a half, the considerable preparations which are now on foot in Britain will not, as the Minister clearly showed, yield results which can be effective in actual fighting strength; while during this very period, Germany may well reach the culminating point of her gigantic military preparations, and be forced by financial and economic stringency, to contemplate a sharp decline, or perhaps some other exit from her difficulties.
It is this lamentable conjunction of events which seems to present the danger of Europe in its most disquieting form. We cannot avoid this period; we are in it now. Surely, if we can abridge' it by even a few months, if we can shorten this period when the German Army will begin to be so much larger than the French Army, and before the British Air Force has come to play its complementary part, you may be the architects who build the peace of the world on sure foundations. Two things, I confess, have staggered me, after a long Parliamentary experience, in these Debates. The first has been the dangers that have so swiftly come upon us in a few years, and have been transforming our position and the whole outlook of the world. Secondly, I have been staggered by the failure of the House of Commons to react effectively against those dangers. That, I am bound to say, I never expected. I never would have believed that we should have been allowed to go on getting into this plight, month by month and year by year, and that even the Government's own confessions of error have produced no concentration of Parliamentary opinion and force capable of lifting our efforts to the

level of emergency. I say that unless the House resolves to find out the truth for itself, it will have committed an act of abdication of duty without parallel in its long history.

5.32 p.m.

Major MILNER: It is always a somewhat saddening thing to be the spectator, however willing, of something in the nature of a family quarrel, but I am personally not going to interfere or endeavour to mediate between the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister. I was very sorry to note that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was using almost the same words as were used on another occasion by the Prime Minister, who said in effect: "If my lips could be unsealed, what a story I might tell to the House." I want to give the House, for what it is worth, a point of view which, so far as I am aware, has not so far been expressed in this or in preceding Debates. I want to point out how, in my judgment and I believe in that of other people, both the Government and the right hon. Gentleman are taking an erroneous view of the whole position in regard to rearmament.
I should like to preface my remarks by reminding the House that almost every speaker on the Government side, and certainly the Minister for the Coordination of Defence, have gone out of their way to say what I believe to be true, that we intend no aggression against any other nation; but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence went further. Other speakers have done the same. He said that we are not in any sense provoking a conflict with others. I submit that almost the whole of the Government's rearmament programme is, in fact, aggressive in character and provocative to the last degree. The Minister for Defence said, two days ago:
It is our aim and purpose to develop as a deterrent as powerful a striking force as we can in the air."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 10th. November, 1936; col. 727, Vol. 317.]
What does that mean? It means provocation. It means a force of offence and not defence. It means a striking force. I would remind the House that so long ago as July, 1934, the Under-Secretary of State for Air told the House that it was then contemplated that the proportion of bombers (which, I submit, are essentially offensive and provocative


weapons) would be in the proportion of two bombers to one fighter. Incidentally, the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping to-day was for more bombers. The fighters are, of course, for the purposes of interception. I understand that the proportion of bombers to fighters to-day is very much greater.
What does that mean? It surely means that this country is developing arms of attack, provocative armaments. That is what long-distance bombers are. Following upon that, other nations are obviously likely to do the same thing. Nations are more and more concentrating upon the threat of retaliation, and they equip themselves for attack and not for defence. The pressure will become unbearable, and it will become a question of who gets in first, in the hope thereby of rendering retaliation impossible or comparatively ineffective.
If I wanted to produce a war, the policy that I would choose would be precisely that of His Majesty's Govern, ment. I should equip a particularly vulnerable country such as our own, the centre of a coveted Empire, with terribly menacing armaments. That policy is the most dangerous that could be followed. It combines on a large scale the three principal incentives to aggression, namely, opportunity, a great prize, and fear, and that is what the Government are doing to-day.
Such a policy of competitive rearmament, mainly with terribly offensive weapons, is bound to go more and more against Great Britain. The present policy, as was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, is based on the theory that even the strongest Power within striking distance of our shores will not dare to attack if we confront it with a force of bombers equal in numbers and equipment to its own. I should like the Minister for Coordination to say, if he proposes to reply, whether that in fact is not the policy of the Government. I submit that that theory is an entirely false one, because it is not the numbers and equipment of the force of bombers that would be the real deterrent to attack, but the damage they could do. This country is so much more

vulnerable than any nearby great Power that, even if we had an equal force of bombers, we could not do to it nearly equivalent damage to that which could be done by any other nation to us. Indeed, the greater the air forces on both sides—and all nations are building great air forces to-day—the greater the comparative disadvantage will be, and the greater, therefore, the temptation to attack us.
There is a second and almost equally important inference to be drawn from the policy which the Government have adopted, namely, that of competitive rearmament with special attention to provocative offensive armaments in the form of bombers. That inference is that the Government are convinced that there cannot be even partial immunity in defence against air attack—that is to say, that the bomber will always get through; and therefore it seems to me that they have, if not wholly, at any rate very largely, given up their job of defence as defence. They have preferred to give priority to preparations for attack rather than preparations for defence.

Mr. HEPWORTH: Retaliation.

Major MILNER: I could offer other proofs than have been put forward to show that to provide, as we are doing, for retaliation, is a fatal error. It would be quite possible to-day, as has been shown to me by air force officers, for another country to send such a fleet of bombing aeroplanes over here to effect a surprise attack that there would be no question of retaliation; our retaliation would be comparatively ineffective. What retaliation does the hon. Gentleman think there might be if a force of a couple of hundred bombers were sent every half-hour, with incendiary bombs or poison gas bombs, over London from 8 in the morning till 12 noon? Does he think that this country could do much in the way of retaliation against that, particularly if they were sent to other towns, such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Bradford and elsewhere? I must not, however, be drawn away from the point that I want to make, which is that the Government are neglecting the problem of real defence and are concentrating on attack.
One instance of that fact is in regard to the question of anti-aircraft guns. It will be within the recollection of Members


of the House that, I think on the 8th January this year, the chairman of Messrs. Vickers, in evidence before the Royal Commission, said that his firm had an extremely up-to-date form of antiaircraft gun, that they had offered it to the Government, but that the Government had declined to give any orders, being apparently content to carry on with the old form of anti-aircraft gun which was in use in the Army in 1918, nearly 20 years ago. That is to say, the Government prefer to provide bombers to attack other countries rather than to provide defence in the form of anti-aircraft guns for this country. That means that practically speaking the nation is to live under the perpetual threat of instant destruction, with the small consolation of being told that we shall be able to inflict by way of retaliation some similar destruction upon the enemy. I have not time to develop that argument as fully as I should like, but would refer the hon. Gentleman to a recent publication, which I think is extremely valuable, entitled "Alternative to Rearmament." It contains a mass of incontrovertible facts supporting the view which I have just put forward.
What is the alternative? Obviously, the problem is to steer between the danger of inviting attack and the danger of provoking attack, and the only way to do that is to combine adequate collective security with non-provocative national defence. I am not going into the matter of collective security to-day; I doubt whether it comes quite within the four corners of the question that is before the House; but I want to deal for a moment with the matter of non-provocative national defence. What do I mean by that? I mean concentration of the authorities on measures which would make this country less vulnerable, but which would not constitute a threat to other nations. One of these measures would be to reverse the present policy of His Majesty's Government, and to reverse the proportion of bombers to fighters, because bombers are more likely to provoke than to deter attack, especially if they belong to a vulnerable country such as this.
A second measure might be to give orders for the improved anti-aircraft guns which I have mentioned, instead of for bombers. Thirdly, the Government might acquire the latest form of search

light. I understand that there is a very wonderful new searchlight which can be obtained; and I know that a tremendous amount of research is going on in regard to covering a large area in the form of a chessboard rather than by a direct ray of light, and there are searchlights which make use of infra-red rays, being able thereby to penetrate fog. Another course which the Government might adopt would be to duplicate, to disperse and to protect essential public services and public buildings in this country—food stores, power stations, railways, telephone systems, waterworks and fire fighting services. They could prepare for blackouts of essential places, and I think a great deal might be done in research into methods of producing rain or fog, either real or artificial. Those IA us who have had any experience of the air know that the weather is really the arch-enemy of the aviator, and it might be possible in a limited area to produce rain, and perhaps also fog.
Then we ought to take steps to protect essential buildings, as is being done in Germany, by reinforcing them with concrete. There are authorities who say that that can be done, and that such buildings can be made very largely bomb-proof. There ought also to be plans for the evacuation, and even the rebuilding, of towns in this country. Finally, and almost more important, steps ought to be taken at once to organise food stores in all parts of the country, so as to reduce the ever-present danger of starvation. In my submission we ought always to have a year's food supplies in this country. Such supplies could be stored in scores of places which aircraft could not get at. We must make a fresh start in the effort to obtain collective security, and show that, while we are prepared to defend ourselves, we are able and willing to make our contribution, both by arms and by consideration of the question of colonies—into which I cannot go now—and by our willingness to agree to the submission of disputes to equity tribunals and to the provision of an international air force. In all of these ways we should make a fresh start in the matter of obtaining collective security.
The measures which I have briefly detailed may not seem very impressive taken one by one, but can anyone deny that, with a. year's supplies of foodstuffs


in hand, with fire fighting services, with evacuation orders, with essential services safeguarded, with research, not on bombs and bombing, but on anti-aircraft defence and cognate matters, Britain would be incomparably less likely to invite or provoke attack than is the case to-day? Such a policy, in my submission, though it obviously would not guarantee complete immunity to people in places directly attacked, would at least prevent the effects of an air attack from extending so as to involve hundreds of thousands of people in other places not directly hit, would reduce the comparative vulnerability of this country to a point where an enemy could not be assured of decisive victory by sudden aggression, and, therefore, would render an enemy victory less likely and less decisive if war should unhappily come. Finally, I believe that this is a policy which, if the Government would undertake it on the lines I have indicated, however briefly, might, and probably would, rally all the peace-lovers of this country, including right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I urge the Government to consider it and adopt it in some form before it is too late.

6.14 p.m.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The discussion on this Amendment has ranged over a very wide field, and we who put this Amendment down are glad that that has been so, for we deliberately worded the Amendment so as to enable a wide discussion to take place on all the problems of defence. Nevertheless it is my duty at this stage to bring the House back to the Amendment, and to the issue that is going to be decided in the Lobby to-night; hut, before doing so, I would like to make one or two short references to the speeches of those Members who immediately preceded me, and particularly to the interesting speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. He, I know, served in the War, as I did, and I can assure him that my loathing of war is no less than his can be. At the same time, I cannot help feeling that he drew a rather false distinction between arras of defence and arms of attack. He suggested that there was something particularly provocative in the possession of bombing aeroplanes, and nothing provocative in the possession

of fighting aeroplanes. It seems to me that the real difference between defence and attack is not in the character of the weapons, but in the use that is made of them. When he turned to an hon. Member opposite and asked him what he would do if squadrons of bombing aeroplanes were coming over London from eight in the morning to midday day after day, I could not help thinking that such a peril was more likely to be averted if we had the power of retaliation than if we had merely to depend upon those schemes of passive defence which the hon. and gallant Gentleman described.
I believe war is a calamity which it is impossible to measure or describe, and I think, therefore, we must be certain that the peace-loving and freedom-loving nations of the world have in their power such force as will deter an aggressor from inflicting these calamities upon us. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he thought that what the Government ought to be concentrating upon was apparatus for the production of fogs, real or artificial, I could not help reflecting that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence had already shown some aptitude in that direction, and when he said the policy that he favoured was one which would include among other items plans for rebuilding our cities, I could not help hoping that we might be able to take some effective steps beforehand to prevent their destruction. Where I entirely agree with his defence plans is in this, that I hope the Government are considering the question which I raised—and it was also dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. j Churchill) and a number of others, in one of these debates On the co-ordination of defence—the defence of our cities against air attack. We understand that a committee was appointed to consider; this subject and the whole House will be interested to know from the Prime Minister what progress is being made by that committee. We have pressed for information on more than one occasion, as recently as last summer. We failed to get much information and I hope the Prime Minister will be able to tell us something on the subject.
But my main task to-day is to bring the House back to the consideration of the issue that is to be decided in the


Division Lobby to-night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping gave us a very powerful and sombre speech on the larger issues of policy. We shall all listen with interest, and even with anxiety, to the reply which the Prime Minister is, no doubt, going to give to that speech; but, if we are not satisfied with it these issues will have to be raised again on a definite Motion on which the House, if necessary, will have to divide. They cannot be adequately discussed and dealt with merely by a general and academic discussion. There must be an opportunity for the House to take a decision on them. Meanwhile the subject upon which the House is going to divide to-night, unless the Prime Minister can give us a reply very different from that given us on Tuesday by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and the First Lord of the Admiralty, is the question of the Government's handling of the report of the Royal Commission on the manufacture and the trade in arms.
There is one misapprehension under which the Minister of Co-ordination of Defence was labouring which I wish to clear up, and that, is as to the attitude which my friends and I have adopted towards this question of nationalisation. It is not the case, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, that the Liberal party is disappointed at the main recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is not the case that we have advocated the immediate nationalisation of the arms industry. It is true that if the Royal Commission had seen its way to recommend it we should have rejoiced, because the more drastic the action that it is feasible to take to eradicate the evils of this industry, the better we should have been pleased. Nevertheless, in my speech in November, 1934, on this subject I dissociated myself from the demand that was made by members of the Labour party for nationalisation because we on these benches knew the practical difficulties in the way and we also knew that the root of the evil is in the international trade in arms and, therefore, that action on an international scale is incomparably more important than anything that one country by itself can do. The attitude of the Liberal party at the last Election is correctly stated in the quotation on page 86 of the Royal Commission's Report from

the statement issued by the National Liberal Federation.
But, apart altogether from the merits of the conclusions at which the Royal Commission have arrived on this question of nationalisation, the issue is really now an academic one. No one supposes for a moment that this Government would, in present circumstances, nationalise the armament industry, nor is there any likelihood that it will be turned out of office for the next three or four years. The value of this report is that it recommends action which would not only remove proved and admitted abuses, but action which the Government could quite well take within the ambit of its present policy. It, therefore, affords firm ground on which public opinion can be rallied in support of urgent measures of reform and, therefore, amply fulfils the intentions that we had in mind in pressing for the appointment of the Royal Commission. Moreover, it has been welcomed and praised by Members of Parliament and by newspapers which support the Government. The "Times" newspaper described it as an admirable and conclusive report and, while the Leader of the Opposition bas said to-day that he found it disappointing, Dr. Addison, who as Minister of Munitions during the War and as a keen advocate himself of nationalisation speaks with peculiar authority for the Socialist party on this subject, has welcomed the report. Our attitude, therefore, is that, having made out a case two years ago which justified, in the Government's opinion, the appointment of this Royal Commission, and our case having been submitted to the Tribunal to which the Government itself appealed for ascertainment of the facts, and important recommendations having been made by that Tribunal, we are entitled to receive from the Government a pledge that measures will be brought before Parliament during the present Session to give effect to the main recommendations of their Royal Commission.
The Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, after paying some compliments to my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, proceeded in a comparatively few sentences to deal most perfunctorily with this important report. He said that my hon. Friend had dwelt upon many points in connection with the manufacture of


arms which require and receive consideration from time to time. Quite true! They received consideration at the time of the Versailles Peace Conference. They received consideration from the Temporary Mixed Commission of the League of Nations 15 years ago. They received consideration from the Disarmament Conference. We have been assured by the Government in successive Debates in this House and in another place that they are constantly receiving consideration. Meanwhile the French and the United States Governments have passed from the stage of consideration to that of action. Our Government lags behind, and it is because we think it ought to be prepared to go further than a mere promise of continued consideration and give the House a definite pledge of action that we have moved this Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman made it a complaint against the Royal Commission that they did not tell the Government in what way control of arms manufacturing capacity was to be exercised. I could not help wondering whether he had read paragraph 130 of the Report. It begins like this:
In principle, however, we think that there should be established by the Government a body for the purpose of controlling supply and deciding questions of priority. Such a body should have executive and not merely advisory powers over supply manufacture, costing and the authorisation of orders from abroad. It should be presided over by a Minister responsible to Parliament. Its main duties would be—
Then follows a carefully considered catalogue of the duties which this body ought to be expected to carry out. It goes on:
We recommend further that the Government's own manufacturing establishments should be fully equipped for the production in sonic measure of naval, military and air armaments.
Then there follows a catalogue of all the advantages that would flow from the adoption of that recommendation and of the further functions which such factories should be expected to discharge. As the Royal Commission themselves say, details of administration and organisation are far outside the scope of their terms of reference, and I do not believe for a moment that, if the Government had had in its mind that it expected from the

Royal Commission a carefully drawn up and detailed scheme for the establishment of a Ministry of Supply, it would have selected these particular ladies and gentlemen to carry out that task. We are not, indeed, asking the Government tonight to produce their detailed plan. We are not asking them to give us an assurance that they will produce it this week or next week; but the mere assurance that these matters require and are receiving consideration from time to time will not satisfy the House or the country. They have been the subject of repeated discussion and searching and expert investigation for years and this report has been in the hands of the Government for nearly six weeks.
Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to try to drive a wedge between the advocates of a Ministry of Supply, headed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, and those who are supporting this Amendment and, indeed, between him and the Royal Commission. There is, I believe, no difference of opinion as to the character of the Ministry or as to the scope of its functions. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I am doing those who make this last proposal no injustice when I suggest that what they want"—
he is referring to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping—
is not the limitation of arms manufacturing capacity but the expansion of capacity. They want to create new sources of supply, to conscript industry, to control labour, to manage finance and generally to divert certain trades now engaged upon peaceful pursuits to the manufacture of weapons of war. I propose to say something before I finish about the proposal to establish a Ministry of Supply, but I am quite sure the Royal Commission did not contemplate a plan of that sort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1936; cols. 725–26, Vol. 317.]
But the Royal Commission made it clear that these are the very problems which they had in view in making their recommendations. The conscription of industry in war time; they have a section of their report dealing with that very problem. Moreover they urge the adoption of their proposals for the setting up of this new body upon this ground, along with two other grounds—to ensure the rapidity of expansion in a period of emergency. I cannot help doubting whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the Report. If he has, he has already forgotten it. Therefore, we ask the


Prime Minister to say whether the Government are prepared to accept in principle the recommendations of the Royal Commission, or to tell us what are the other measures which they propose to strengthen their present system of price control, a system of control which they submitted to the judgment of the Royal Commission, and which the Royal Commission find is weak and inadequate, and what measures they propose to take effectively to plan their expansion of armaments in the present emergency and to prevent profiteering in time of war. Conscription of industry does indeed raise problems of immense difficulty and complexity, but that is no reason for shirking them or for delaying consideration of them. On the contrary they ought to be considered by an expert and authoritative body at once, a body such as the Royal Commission recommend should be set up.
The omissions from the speeches of the Government spokesmen on Tuesday are even more remarkable than what they said. For it is generally agreed—and indeed it is declared by the Royal Commission—that the evils and abuses connected with the trade in arms are much more important than those connected with their manufacture. In the past the Government have assured us that the present system of export licences is an effective safeguard against abuses in the British share of this international trade. We on this side of the House have constantly and assiduously challenged those statements, and now our case is substantiated by the report of the Royal Commission. I therefore ask the Prim Minister, will the Government accept the proposals of the Royal Commission for the discontinuance of open general licences for the export of arms, and also will they accept the other proposals of the Commission for the reform of the export licensing system? And in particular do they accept the proposals of the Royal Commission that the trade in surplus and second-hand arms and munitions of war should be completely and finally banned?
Of course, it is an international trade, and international action is essential. I therefore ask the Prime Minister—and T hope that he will be able to give us before this Debate ends an answer to these really vital questions, which go to

the root of the abuses of this system of the international trade in arms; these vital questions about the reform of the export licensing system and the trade in second-hand arms and munitions—I ask him, do the Government accept the Royal Commission's recommendation of the proposals of the United States Government? Other governments are pressing for action on those lines. On the initiative of the French Government, the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference is being summoned to discuss this and two other subjects. The provisions of the United States Draft Convention have already been incorporated in legislation in the United States of America, as far as that can be done without international agreement. It is a fact which perhaps is not generally recognised, and which certainly finds no reflection in the speeches from the Government supporters, that a national munitions board has already been set up in the United States of America, and that registration of arms manufacturers and export and import licences have been made compulsory. And what is very important, a duty has been laid by the United States Congress upon that munitions hoard to report to Congress, so as to ensure full publicity about the manufacture and trade in arms in the United States of America.
Those provisions have had immediate effects, for it is remarkable that although the United States Government have no power to forbid the export of arms to Spain, no such export has in fact taken place direct from the United States of America, and nobody can doubt that this is clue to the fact that the manufacturers shrink from the publicity which the American system now involves. That is the system which we are pressing the Government to say that they will approve in principle, as is recommended by the report of the Royal Commission, and carry into effect before the end of the present Session. There is indeed some suspicion that some small consignments of arms may have reached Spain from the United States of America through transhipment from other countries, but that only emphasises the need for international agreements. Other countries are moving, and the British Government lag behind. It is astonishing that the Government should


show so little respect for that public opinion, which, as Lord Halifax said, is so profoundly and sincerely moved by the moral aspect of this problem, that they have not even thought it worth while to declare their attitude towards or even to comment upon these vitally important recommendations of the Royal Commission.
Before the end of his speech the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence criticised the speech which had been made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith). He said:
I shall show him … that the younger generation is not backward when it has heard the call.
What was his proof? Ten thousand recruits for the Navy, and 60,000 applications for the Air Force. And what about the Army? The Regular Army, as we know, is between 30,000 and 40,000 short of its establishment and the Territorial Army between 80,000 and 90,000 short. A call was issued for 17,000 recruits for the Supplementary Reserve, but after two weeks only 286 men appeared to have heard the vociferous calls of the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman called the speech of my hon. Friend censorious of our young men. There was another speech I heard or read not long ago that there are a vast number of young men doing too little in the service of their country. That was not my hon. Friend, but the Secretary of State for War. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the speech of my hon. Friend was censorious, it would be interesting to know what he thinks of that of the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment was, as I shall try to show, in error in his rather sweeping generalisation as to the backwardness of the younger generation being due in part to their suspicions about war profits. I shall show him in a moment that the younger generation is not backward when it has heard the call. It is easy for men of my age to be censorious of the younger generation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1936; col. 734, Vol. 317.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the recruitment of 70,000 men out of the whole of our population disposes of the argument that large numbers of plain people in this country are

sincerely and profoundly moved by the admitted abuses of this trade in arms, and, above all, by the unwillingness of the Government to take any action to end them or even to adopt in principle the deliberate recommendations of the Royal Commission whom they themselves appointed? Why, you want not merely to maintain that flow of recruits into the Navy and the Air Force and perhaps increase it, but you want to find nearly double that number for the Army. There was another speech made a few weeks ago by the Adjutant-General to the Forces. He said:
We are really fighting for the voluntary system. The question is a national one and not a party question, and if we are to keep up the voluntary system we must get recruits. We shall not get recruits unless we have public opinion behind us.
There was more sound political sense in that general's speech than there was in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman from the Treasury Bench on Tuesday. More than that, you not only want these recruits in all the three Services, but you want the willing work of hundreds of thousands of men and women all over the country—leaders of opinion, writers, speakers, skilled workmen, trade unionists; you want the whole nation welded into the same unity of purpose as we had in this country 20 years ago. There is an immense reservoir of courage, energy, patriotism and idealism in the young people of this country, and they are not afflicted with deafness. The question is not their difficulty in hearing the call. The obstacle is that the right call is not being sounded from the Government benches at the present time. My hon. Friend was abundantly right, as Lord Halifax has shown that he knows, and as the Royal Commission themselves declare, in saying that you will not get that unity if people think that others are going to make huge profits out of their sacrifices, if you refuse to accept the recommendations of your own Royal Commission which would destroy harmful but well grounded suspicion, as the report of the Royal Commission says, and if you refuse to lift the national purpose on to a higher plane of effort where we can rally to defend not only, as the right hon. Gentleman said, our national and Imperial interests, but also freedom, democracy, and the reign of law against aggression and dictatorship.

6.44 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): This Debate is unique in one way in that there has intervened between the two days the remembrance of the Armistice. I became more than ever convinced in the course of my meditations yesterday—and I expect many other hon. Members were too—of two things—one, that every endeavour we could use in our diplomacy and in our foreign policy and in every way possible should be directed to keeping the peace in Europe; secondly, that if that peace be unhappily broken we shall be prepared. These two things to-day are not necessarily contradictory, but I believe that the country as a whole would be of my opinion in that matter.
I should like to make one observation in answer to the speeches from the Liberal benches. I regret that when they put their Amendment down it was quite impossible for us to say more than has been said. Were I able to issue myself in triplicate I might possibly have been in a position to have said more. These questions are not too simple and require very careful examination. That careful examination they will have. They are now being examined, as most proposals are examined, Departmentally first, and in due course they must come to the Cabinet. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, although I give no pledge, because I have not given my own attention to this matter, and it has not been before the Cabinet, that it is having and will have our earnest and serious consideration, such consideration as the importance of the subject naturally warrants and demands.
I should like to make one or two observations about the speech of the Leader of the Opposition earlier to-day. There were at least two important things on which he desired information which it is impossible to give—what is our defensive strategy and what is our plan for meeting air attack? If there are any things that would be welcomed in a good many foreign countries it would be a clear exposition on those subjects. No one, however, must draw the conclusion from that reply of mine that these things are being neglected. The question that was raised about the Empire is not an easy one. The Empire relations are less simple to-day than they were in the old days before the War, but I think it is fair to say that the

Dominions throughout are anxious about the state of world politics and they have discussed with us their own defences. In regard to what the Leader of the Opposition said about utilising the Dominions for manufacture, I hope very much that in Canada steps may be taken to bring that very desirable end to pass.
I do not propose, and it would be impossible in the time at my disposal, or in the time during which anyone could listen to me, to deal with everything that has been raised in this Debate, or to discuss in detail the numbers or quantities of particular weapons. There are difficulties about that; difficulties in the giving of information which I do not think it wise or safe to give. Apart from that, the field to be covered is so wide and the several parts so inter-connected that to stress or over-stress this or that particular might tend to make us lose the true perspective which we must always try to keep. There was a most interesting speech from my old friend the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) who raised a question that would require a day's debate in this House, a question that completely alters the whole subject of military training and military organisation in this country. It is a most important question and one which must be debated but on which it would be impossible to say anything to-day profitably.
We are, and some of the speeches have shown this, because of our geographical position, our Imperial interests and our Imperial communications, so placed with regard to both offence and defence that we have to look at more than one Service for our protection. I am not going to enter into a discussion, into which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) entered earlier to-day with such devastating effect, as to the relative merits of the Navy and the Air Force. Suffice it to say that so long as there is an Empire both these Forces will be required. Just as the one Force will have to protect the heart of the Empire the other will have to protect our communications.
Before I come to the Debate itself—and I shall try to deal with as many subjects as I can—I want to put before the House something of the work—if I did not misunderstand him I thought the Leader of the Opposition spoke a little


slightingly of it—of the Committee of Imperial Defence, because there are a great many things outside armaments that must necessarily be prepared for in time of crisis, and some of them are things from which in the past we have suffered through not being prepared. The problems to be dealt with, largely because of the modern development of the air, are complicated and baffling. It may be said that there is a certain number of these problems for which a solution has been found. There are a certain number of a second category which are still in process of examination, on which progress has been made but which have not yet been solved in every detail. There is a third category of difficulties and problems that have only lately appeared and which are still being worked out and of which the solution is not yet in sight. There is nothing new about that. That was the position before 1914, just as it is the position to-day. A great number of the problems of 1914 have been solved satisfactorily. I have two quotations which I wish to read to the House. The OFFICIAL HISTORY says:
Given the scale which we deliberately chose to adopt, there is no doubt that the machinery for setting our Forces in action had reached an ordered completeness in detail that has no parallel in our history.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in "The World Crisis" said:
The work of Ottley and of Hankey and generally of the Committee of Imperial Defence was now put to the proof. It was found in every respect thorough and comprehensive, and all over the country emergency measures began to astonish the public.
Nevertheless, I am sure that those who were responsible for the direction of affairs during the War would admit that the War itself soon disclosed a great number of vital problems that had not been tackled before. We have to-day to learn from that. Perhaps the most important of the things that had never been considered was the whole question of manpower. The result was that key-men from many industries and from the land went out in the earliest drafts to the War, many were killed and we had infinite trouble later in the War in bringing many of them back to do their work on munitions. There was no scheme when the War began for the development of

munitions and war material, with consequences with which we are only too familiar. Even in the technical sphere of the Navy there were great defects. I remember particularly what one heard about the inefficiency and inadequacy of our mines and of many of our torpedoes and armour-piercing shells.
All these difficulties that we went through at that time ought to be remembered when we are thinking perhaps to-day that everything in the past has been perfect and that it is only this unhappy Government that is fumbling along. We have to-day, by methods similar to those employed before the War, reached a position—I am not speaking of armaments at this moment—of organisation considerably in advance of where we were in 1914, because the problems that were omitted before the War have been tackled by successive Governments, Such a question is man-power. In regard to man-power we have a whole volume of information now which was not available in 1914, and we know pretty well how the man-power could immediately be distributed. Questions of supplies and essential raw materials and munitions have been and are being worked out, the problems that were dealt with by the Ministry of Munitions, the distribution of imports, the problems of the Ministry of Blockade—insurance of shipping, the distribution of imports in case of diversion of traffic to other ports—all these things have been or are being worked out. In these respects our arrangements are incomparably better than they were in 1914, although they have to be constantly adjusted to meet changes in the situation. There is a changed situation to-day which did not exist in 1914 and that is the increased radius of air power. All these activities are under constant examination by skilled brains.
The new system of a Minister for Coordination, acting as deputy-chairman of that committee and the Defence Requirements Committee, is in my view working admirably. I think that his tact and his work under conditions where he has no Defence of the Realm Act behind him and his judgment in handling the problems that he has to meet, have been such that he has achieved all the success that I hoped and believed he would achieve. Right hon. Members opposite


and other Members of the House may think that what we are doing is insufficient. That is a question of opinion, but I do not think anyone can dispute that the work that is going on to-day is proceeding with the smoothness that was hoped for and that it might not have got had we not had the advantage of the personality of the present Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence.
The completion of the programme for meeting the accumulated deficiencies of many years was in itself a tremendous task. We have had to make adjustments and accelerations to meet the ever deteriorating international conditions. That has been no small task, and we have not been left to pursue it in that atmosphere of detachment in which it would have been comparatively simple. We have had to carry on that process subject to a number of grave disturbances. For many months we have a succession of crises; the difficult situation in the Mediterranean demanded almost daily consultation with London, and daily consideration; the re-occupation of the Rhineland, difficulties in Palestine, troubles in Spain—all overlapping, reacting one on another, and some of them, particularly the Mediterranean trouble, interfering with and retarding the development of our programme of defence. But in spite of all these difficulties the defence programmes are launched, well launched, and making on the whole good progress.
Monthly reports are received from all the Departments engaged in these matters, not only from the Service Departments but from the other Departments concerned. These reports are exhaustively reviewed by my right hon. Friend. He reviews them with a Cabinet Committee, and every possible step is taken to remedy whatever lag may become visible. There are questions from time to time between the Services. There was a question that gave us a good deal of trouble as to the place of aircraft in coastal defence. That was settled two or three years ago by a Committee over which I presided when I still attended regularly the Committee of Imperial Defence. More recently there has been an investigation into that very great question of the battleship and the bomb, and the House has been made acquainted with the result of that inquiry. Another question on which

there is still acute controversy, as was shown on Tuesday and to-day, is the question of the Fleet Air Arm. To certain details, on which divergencies of view were most acute, the Minister for Co-ordination has already given his attention. His recommendations are with the Defence Ministers, and at the moment it would be premature to say any more on that subject.
Then there is a most important question not yet completely solved, but in a partial state of solution, the question of the food supply of the country in time of war. The main functions of the Defence Services for the protection of our food supplies have been defined, and in certain aspects where they may overlap, for example in the narrow seas, the staffs concerned are engaged in working out these problems. The plans for the coast defences and the anti-aircraft defences of our ports of entry have been drawn up. They too are constantly under review, for the same reason that I mentioned earlier, because of the constantly increasing range of aircraft. Allusion was made in a most interesting speech by the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) to the machinery for the distribution of imports in case of the diversion of shipping. I am glad to say that great progress has been made on that subject. An appropriate organisation is being drawn up and is well advanced; it has been approved and is being completed in detail.
Before I leave the question of food supply in time of war I would mention that a scheme of rationing has been drawn up which could be used if the emergency arose. The Ministry of Agriculture has drawn up a general scheme for increasing production in the event of war, and it is now engaged in working it out in detail. There are other aspects of the question, the investigation of which involves the most delicate and difficult economic problems. We have not yet completed them, and they may take some time. They include the general question of what I may call feeding policy. That includes such things as the creation of stocks of food and possible arrangements for food control. There are few more difficult or complicated subjects in time of war than this, as was discovered 20 years ago, but fortunately we have the experience of the last War to guide us.


I do not think there is any question which has been raised in recent debates on the subject of defence on which we have not brought to bear the best brains at the disposal of the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley seemed to think that some of these matters which I have mentioned are worked out or could be worked out by the Secretariat of the Committee of Imperial Defence. That is a complete misapprehension. What happens is that although the Secretariat cannot do that work themselves they have to see to it that the work is done, and to assist the Committee in arranging that the responsibility for action is allocated. It would interest the House to know how many men have been working on these and similar problems in the course of the last year. No fewer than 532 individuals, including 29 Ministers of the Crown, 179 officers of the fighting Services, 283 civil servants, 11 representatives from the Dominions and 30 persons outside the Government service participated in that work, and each of these individuals is either the head of some Department or section of a Department or a special expert on some aspect of these questions, such, for instance, as experts from the port authorities, railways and canals. It will be seen, therefore, that the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence on this side has covered an enormous range, and that range has been focused into a concerted scheme of national preparation for defence. So far as the results of these inquiries involve action in time of war, they are embodied in a document familiar to Ministers who function at that time, that book so useful at the outbreak of war, and which is known as the War Book, a great index of all action to be taken for transferring the activities of the Government and of the nation, perhaps overnight, from peace to war.
I will turn now to some of the matters which have been most prominent during the Debate, and I will begin by saying something about the various references that have been made to the air, and to our defensive and offensive air preparations. I make no apology to the House for going into some detail in the matter of supply, because it is a matter of very great importance, and although I sometimes feel hampered in the knowledge

that it is impossible for me to give figures, or many figures—there are many things on which I dare not touch—yet here, in saying something about the practice, I think I can give the House as full information as I have in my power. As has been said in the Debate, the production of engines in the 1937 programme is entirely satisfactory. As regards completed aeroplanes, these are in some cases behind the delivery that was originally hoped for. There is nothing surprising or alarming in this. The Secretary of State for Air has on more than one occasion explained the policy which the Government decided, and I am sure rightly decided, to pursue with regard to certain new types.
It was, I think, a courageous judgment on the part of the Government, and it has been proved to have been a wise one. It used to be the practice to order prototypes of new machines, to try them out and prove them completely, and to place production orders only when the type was fully proved. This practice made production a comparatively easy matter, but it was open to a just criticism, which has often been mentioned in the House, that it involves a very long delay in the production of new types. The expansion of the Air Force under that programme, what I call the 1937 programme, came at a time when new types of aeroplanes of greatly improved range and performance were being designed. We felt it to be of the utmost importance to get these new machines into production as quickly as possible. Under the old system prototypes would have been made and tried out, and then production orders would have been placed. We took the risk of giving production orders in the absence of that proof. Anyone familiar with aircraft production knows that you almost always have difficulties, teething troubles, with new types and especially with the first machines of a new type.
These new-type machines involved many novel features and some difficulties were inevitably encountered. They are all being satisfactorily overcome. But under the new system we have this great advantage, that while proof of the new types is going on, work is taking place on bulk orders. Material has been delivered, machinery has been installed, jigs and tools have been made and work on the initial batches carried forward,


the net result being that as the initial difficulties are overcome bulk production comes forward immediately behind. I do not think any hon. Member will doubt the wisdom of that course. Having dealt with these new types in this way, not waiting to prove them out before we ordered bulk production, we have halved the time in which the machines can be built. It would have been easy to place large orders for existing types. We could then no doubt put in the shop window a larger number of machines at a rather earlier date, but we should not have had nearly as effective a force as we shall have by accepting some postponement of the full deliveries, and we secure machines of a considerably higher type of all round performance.
The Government's policy with regard to the construction of aero engines in shadow factories has been fully stated in the White Paper. The more that plan is studied the more general is the conviction that it is right. It must always be remembered that a large and increasing production of engines will be coming forward all through the programme from the regular engine firms, and the shadow plan supplements that. But it does much more. It serves the double purpose of securing a supply of additional engines for the programme and greatly strengthening what has been called the "war potential." Under the plans already laid down by the Supply Board various great civil firms are allotted in war to produce munitions of various kinds for the three services. Under that plan some of the great motor firms are allocated to aircraft. We decided that the execution of the 1939 programme afforded an admirable opportunity of giving those firms an experience in producing aero engines with the minimum interference with their civil business.
"Shadow" factories, as they have been called, are being erected by the firms on Government account and will be managed by them. As hon. Members have seen from the White Paper, having decided on this course, the Secretary of State for Air took the very practical course of inviting the firms to meet him, discussing with them all aspects of the problem, and asking the firms, in association with the Bristol company, the designers of the engines, to advise on what they considered the most practical way of doing the job. They unanimously advised on

the method which has been adopted. They are firms of great experience; they are working as a team, and they are confident, as we are, that they will see the job through.
Two criticisms have been made and they have, I think, been answered. The first criticism is that it is an unsound engineering proposition to entrust the making of different parts to different firms. There are two answers to this. First, that it is already the common practice. The great aero engine firms have, for a long time past, with complete success, been employing a large number of sub-contractors to work for them. Secondly, no one is more competent to advise on what is or is not a practical engineering proposition than the firms who have put up this plan and who take full responsibility for working it. The other criticism is that it would be unsafe to rely on a single chain of manufacture. This argument may be pressed too far. You cannot, if you are to take advantage of modern industrial practice, make all your units self-contained. But the force of the argument was recognised from the start, and the Secretary of State for Air made it plain to the firms that in war the links of the chain would have to be multiplied. There should be no difficulty in doing this, for it will be observed that should the whole of the great civil factories turn over to war work, a considerable part of their plant and machinery could be used in engine and aeroplane construction, and that plant could and would be supplemented by other machinery. I would remind the House of the considered view expressed by the motor firms that in the present circumstances it is desirable and indeed essential to avoid the difficulty and delay which would arise from the multiplication of orders for jigs, fixtures, gauges, tools and other plant; and I am confident it will be found, both from the point of view of the present programme and from the point of view of long-term policy, that the course which we have adopted is right.
Having spoken of that I think this would be a suitable occasion to make one observation on a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. My right hon. Friend did not speak so much to-day about priorities but he has often laid stress on priorities—priorities


which should determine the order in which our numerous needs should be dealt with. Of course it depends very much on how you look at these things, but I can quite understand that he with his temperament, and even I myself with a very different temperament, must feel at times that there is not a single article of munitions or anything connected with war which has not priority. I admit that my right hon. Friend, whether it be in the air list or items in the gun list or whatever the item may be—I do not quarrel with any of them—would put everything in the first line of priority.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is the same as putting nothing in.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not disposed to quarrel for a moment with my right hon. Friend. The practical difference between the right hon. Gentleman and those who take that view and ourselves is that such action would increase the pace more and more, irrespective entirely of the effect on commerce, industry and finance. We are fully determined to press forward the plans already worked out, to modify, to extend them if necessary in the light of developments, but we do not feel justified in bringing about the dislocation of trade which must follow any attempt to proceed upon the more lavish scale advocated in some quarters. We started late, and I want to say a word about the years the locusts have eaten. I want to speak to the House with the utmost frankness. There can be no difference of opinion in this House, either on those benches or among my own supporters or among my hon. and right hon. Friends who have been taking a prominent part in this Debate, on this point, that in those years, from 1924 to 1929, when we did cut down the Services, we all did it, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after due and full consideration, and we did it because we still had hopes of disarmament, because we believed that there was no danger of a major war within a decade and because we were very anxious to conserve the finance of the country.
The difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is in the years 1933 onwards. In 1931–32,

although it is not admitted by the Opposition, there was a period of financial crisis. But there was another reason. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken more than once about the anxieties which were caused after the events in Germany in 1933, and the neglect of the Government to do anything or make any preparations in 1933–34. He was more modest to-day; he spoke of a couple of million pounds. I would remind the House that not once but on many occasions in speeches and in various places, when I have been speaking and advocating as far as I am able the democratic principle, I have stated that a democracy is always two years behind the dictator. I believe that to be true. It has been true in this case. I put before the whole House my own views with an appalling frankness. From 1933, I and my friends were all very worried about what was happening in Europe. You will remember at that time the Disarmament Conference was sitting in Geneva. You will remember at that time there was probably a stronger pacifist feeling running through this country than at any time since the War. I am speaking of 1933 and 1934. You will remember the election at Fulham in the autumn of 1933, when a seat which the National Government held was lost by about 7,000 votes on no issue but the pacifist. You will remember perhaps that the National Government candidate who made a most guarded reference to the question of defence was mobbed for it.
That was the feeling in the country in 1933. My position as the leader of a great party was not altogether a comfortable one. I asked myself what chance was there—when that feeling that was given expression to in Fulham was common throughout the country—what chance was there within the next year or two of that feeling being so changed that the country would give a mandate for rearmament? Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and that we must rearm, does anybody think that this pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment? I cannot think of anything that would have made the loss of the election from my point of view more certain. I think the country itself learned by certain events that took place during the winter of 1934–35 what


the perils might be to it. All I did was to take a moment perhaps less unfortunate than another might have been, and we won the election with a large majority; but frankly I could conceive that we should at that time, by advocating certain courses, have been a great deal less successful. We got from the country—with a large majority—a mandate for doing a thing that no one, 12 months before, would have believed possible. It is my firm conviction that had the Government, with this great majority, used that majority to do anything that might be described as arming without a mandate—and they did not do anything, except the slightly increased air programme for which they gave their reasons—had I taken such action as my right hon. Friend desired me to take, it would have defeated entirely the end I had in view. I may be wrong, but I put that to the House as an explanation of my action in that respect.
There is one other thing I will say. I shall always trust the instincts of our democratic people. They may come a little late, but my word, they come with a certainty when they do come; they come with a unity not imposed from the top, not imposed by force, but a unity that nothing can break. I believe today that, whatever differences there may be among us in the country on various questions—as there must be—the conviction is biting deep into our country, with all its love of peace, that there must be no going back on our resolution for such rearmament as we deem necessary to meet any possible peril from whatever quarter it may come. That feeling is coupled with the feeling which we all have that we are as anxious as ever to see all the countries of Europe considering disarmament, especially in the air. But until that day comes, nothing will shake the resolution either of the Government or of this House or of our people.
I am afraid I must trouble the House with a few words more about a Ministry of Supply. This is the real point of difference between my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping and the Government. The attitude we have taken is not particularly my attitude or the attitude of any individual; it is the considered judgment of the whole Cabinet. In the light of all the facts there are before us, we

take the full responsibility for it, and I think I might very briefly allude to the principal reasons. That has been done once, twice, three times, but I would like to run through those reasons again. Before doing so, however, I would like to deal with one question which I do not think my right hon. Friend mentioned to-day, but which I know has been in his mind. I do not know whether he still attaches importance to it, but some little time ago he did. He said that the Ministry of Supply, if there was one, could set up a council of business men to advise it. I appreciate as fully as anyone the value of the advice which business men can give, but all my experience goes to show that that advice, if it is to be to the point, must be directed to specific matters, matters about which a man with business experience can speak with practical knowledge.
Now, we can get all that without a Ministry of Supply and without a council of business men. Let me take the case of aircraft. What did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air do? He did what I told you a few moments ago. He did not set up a council of business men, but sent for the motor manufacturers, put before them the specific problem of the production of aircraft engines, both now and in time of emergency, and asked them to address their minds to the specific question, What could the motor industry do by way of contributing to the solution of the problem? Concurrently, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, realising that, as is common knowledge, the question of the supply of machine-tools is a key question, did not wait for advice from business men in general; he sent for the machine-tool makers, put to them the problem of the supply and asked them to formulate the steps necessary to supply what is needed for urgent munitions work, paying attention, as far as possible, to the needs of the private home and export trade. Those are two examples of plain, practical, common-sense action, based upon the precise needs of the moment for the Forces of the Crown. I do not believe that a Minister of Supply or of Munitions could take more effective action—he might take very similar action—unless we had reached the stage at which the situation called for measures of the kind demanded only by an actual emergency. That is


the broad line of difference between those who want to see a Ministry of Supply or Munitions set up immediately and those, like ourselves, who do not.
One suggestion has been made which, if ever it was valid, I think is not valid to-day. It was suggested in a previous Debate that a Minister of Supply is needed because there are conflicting demands on the part of the Service Departments, but that is not the case. Through the Supply Board, and through the operation of the effective system of co-operation which has been established between the three Supply Departments, there is, in my view, no conflict of demand that cannot be settled. The real conflict is not between the three Service Departments, but between the demands of private industry and the demands of the Service Departments as a whole. I do not deny that there is some conflict here, and in particular cases it may constitute a real difficulty; but I feel that the right course to pursue in the circumstances is to put the problem to those actually engaged in the particular trade concerned, and where there are difficulties, to enlist their aid in devising arrangements, which, while they will give us as far as possible what we need for defence, will do so with a minimum of dislocation of our ordinary and particularly of our export trade. We do not need a Minister of Supply for that. We can and we are achieving results through the work of each of the three Departments, aided where necessary by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. Nobody knows better than my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, with his great experience as Minister of Munitions, that those questions of supply are very detailed subjects involving very matter-of-fact and day-to-day questions, such as, raw materials, factory equipment, labour strength and so forth. They do not necessarily involve questions of major principle; they are in the nature of executive action, and what is needed for their effective treatment at any rate for the present, is a due degree of driving force at the top and adequate co-operation below.
I have only one or two more observations on this subject. The Government are engaged, as the House knows, in carrying out an extensive and expensive

programme. Its size involves heavy demands on industry; the cost must make heavy demands upon our resources. The question is which is the best way in the present circumstances of carrying out our programme. Our method may be described as one of voluntary co-operation between all concerned, while coordinating our efforts and interfering as little as possible with normal civil industry. The other method is to ask Parliament now to confer on the Government compulsory powers forthwith. But I do want the House to realise how extensive those powers if taken would have to be. The powers of the Ministry of Munitions in the War covered pages and pages of D,O.R.A. Regulations. The scope of the powers must extend to industry as a whole. You cannot do it in fragments. It must extend to industry as a whole. What I fear, in fact what I feel confident of, is that if that were done now, it would create such uncertainty and uneasiness throughout the whole trade of the country that it would check the development of enterprise and stop the trade expansion and I hardly dare to reckon how it might react on finance.
These are grave risks and at the moment the Government are not prepared to take them. It is very easy to be led into supposing that dictatorial methods are necessarily more effective than the co-ordination of free effort, but we must not imagine that other countries whose governments do not submit their plans for defence to Parliament and do not require the approval of the legislature for the power which they exercise, whose Ministers are never criticised and have not to explain themselves, therefore escape all trouble. The last War showed one thing plainly and it was that at times when we might have suspected that the enemy was prepared to the last button, that all was going happily with him and that he had no difficulties, he was, even then, struggling with handicaps and confusions of which we knew nothing. It is a mistake to suppose that our methods are necessarily inferior to other methods which are largely concealed from the public gaze. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping seldom speaks nowadays without a quotation from the Latin tongue and I rejoice that it should be so.


He gave us one to-day, and I, at this point, would like to give another:
Omne ignotum pro terribili.
which I might translate thus:
Things you know nothing about are always bogies.
Experience in the House of Commons has taught me the lesson that more is to be gained in this country by relying on willing co-operation than by adopting dictatorial methods, until they are forced upon you and become essential. The House of Commons and the British people are very alike. The exercise of compulsory powers inevitably involves, at any rate at first, a most serious dislocation of industry, a dislocation which may be out of all proportion to the benefits obtained. It may well be that, instead of being hastened, production for some time may be retarded. But it is certain—and I must repeat this—that it would so dislocate the ordinary free working of industry as to reduce our effective financial strength; and that financial strength, so carefully nursed and looked after through all these years, is one of the strongest weapons we have if war ever comes upon us.
I have said earlier that I am not prepared to discuss in detail the number or quantity of particular weapons of offence or of defence. The reasons for this are well known and no one knows them better than my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. When he and his friends came, as everyone knows, to see me in July last to give me their views upon the situation and lay before me certain information which they had as to what was going on abroad—views and information which I was very glad to have—they made it perfectly plain that all they had in mind was to convey their knowledge to me. They did not ask that I should, subsequently, tell them anything I could not tell openly to the House of Commons. I think my right hon. Friend knows that we hope to have the pleasure of seeing him and his right hon. and hon. Friends again when we can give them the results of the careful examination which we have made into all the points of detail. I should like very much, once more, to say to the Opposition that if the Leader of the Opposition and any friends of his want, at any time, to come to discuss with me or with any of my colleagues some of these problems, whether they wish to give

us information or to ask for information, they will be equally welcome.
It is common knowledge that the rulers of the totalitarian States are in the happy position of not being criticised for what they may do or fail to do. They are under no obligation to make their plans known or to disclose their progress or lack of it. I am the last person to want to be in a similar position. I have made known on many occasions my views on democracy. But I think it not unreasonable to ask that, in these matters of defence, where necessarily we are not at liberty to discuss details, there should be extended to us, and particularly to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, a certain measure of trust and confidence. I do not want to magnify or to minimise the seriousness of the position. I am giving the assurance to the House that I aim reasonably satisfied with the progress that is being made. If, for any reason, whether through a shortage of labour or a shortage of material or any other difficulty, the time should come when I and my colleagues feel that sterner steps are necessary to complete the programme that we have in view, I shall not hesitate to come down to this House and ask for all the powers I need, whenever that time may come. I promised my right hon. Friend to say a word on another matter. I am in a position to say that my right hon. Friend's estimate of the German metropolitan first-line air strength is definitely too high. That is the best information we have. I regret that I cannot give exact figures.
I am grateful to the House for having listened to me for so long. I do not often trouble them with a long speech, but I felt that to-day I must give them such information as was in my power and tell them frankly the position of the Government with regard to certain questions. I would only repeat—and I do so for the third time in this speech—the words with which I opened. I know they will find an echo in every breast in this House. The whole of our efforts in the field of diplomacy and foreign policy will be aimed at bringing agreement and peace to all foreign Powers. At the same time all our efforts will be devoted to


this great question of defence—the protection of our own people—and we will not relax our efforts for one moment, because we know that while we shall work for the blessings of peace, there can be no peace, in Europe certainly, unless

every country knows that we are prepared for war.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 337.

Divison No. 5.]
AYES.
[7.55 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall. J. H. (Whitechapel)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, G. D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.


Amnion, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)


Barr, J.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bellenger, F.
Jenkins. Sir W. (Neath)
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
John, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Brooke, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Silkin, L.


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Simpson, F. B


Cluse, W. S
Lathan, G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cocks, F. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Sioke)


Cove, W. G.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Macdonatd, G. (Ince)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
MacLaren, A.
Vlant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Foot, D. M.
Milner, Major J.
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.
Montague, F.
White, H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Whiteley, W.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gibbins, J.
Naylor. T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.
Sir Hugh Seely and Mr. Acland.


Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Price, M. P.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Blair, Sir R.
Carver, Major W. H.


Albery, Sir I. J.
Blaker, Sir R.
Cary, R. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. I. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Bossom, A. C.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Apsley, Lord
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Assheton, R.
Bracken, B.
Channon, H.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Choriton, A. E. L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Christie, J. A.


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Clarke, F. E.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Bull, B. B.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Burghley, Lord
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Colman, N. C. D.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Burton, Col. H. W.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Butler, R. A.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk. N.)


Bernays, R. H.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)




Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Hopkinson, A.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Petherick, M.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.
Pilkington, R.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
plugge, L. F.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Critchley, A.
Hulbert, N. J.
Power, Sir J. C.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hume, Sir G. H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Crooke. J. S.
Hunter, T.
Procter, Major H. A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Purbrick, R.


Cross. R. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Radford. E. A.


Crossley, A. C.
Jackson, Sir H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Crowder, J. F. E.
James, Wing-commander A. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Rankin, R.


Culverwell, C. T.
Joel, D. J. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Keeling, E. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Davison, Sir W. H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Remer, J. R.


Dawson. Sir P.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skip'on)


De Chair, S. S.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


De la Bère, R.
Kimball, L.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Dodd, J. S.
Latham, Sir P.
Rowlands, G.


Doland, G. F.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Donner, P. W.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lees-Jones, J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Leigh, Sir J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Drewe, C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, Sir I.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Salt. E. W.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Levy, T.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Dugdale. Major T. L.
Lewis, O.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Duggan. H. J.
Liddall, W. S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Duncan. J. A. L.
Little. Sir E. Graham-
Sandys, E. D.


Dunglass, Lord
Llewellin. Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Lloyd, G. W.
Savery, Servington


Eastwood, J. F.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Scott, Lord william


Eckersley, P. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Selley, H. R.


Eden. Rt. Hon. A.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Ellis. Sir G.
Lyons, A. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Elliston, G. S.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Emery, J. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Simmonds, O. E.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's u. B'lf'st),


Entwistle, C. F.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Erskine Hill, A. G.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Evans. Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Everard, W. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Smith, Sir R. W, (Aberdeen)


Fildes, Sir H.
McKie, J. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Findlay, Sir E.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J,
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fleming, E. L.
Maitland, A.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Spender-Clay Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Spens, W. P.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Maxwell, S. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Gluckstein. L. H.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Granville, E. L.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Greene. W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-(N'thw'h)


Grimston, R. V.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Stuart, Hon. J, (Moray and Nairn)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Morgan, R. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Guest. Maj.Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Tate, Mavis C.


Guinness, T, L. E. B,
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Guy, J. C. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Thomas, J. p. L. (Hereford)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'sfr)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hannon, Sir P. J, H.
Munro, P.
Touche, G. C.


Harbord, A.
Nail, Sir J.
Train, Sir J.


Harvey, Sir G.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Heilgers, Captain F F. A.
O'Connor, Sir Terrence J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Turton, R. H.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Wakefield, W. W.


Hepworth, J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Patrick, C. M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Peake, O.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. w. (Ripon)
Peat, C. U.
Warrender, Sir V.


Holmes, J. S.
Penny, Sir G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Perkins. W. R. D.
Wayland, Sir W. A.







Well, S. R.
Withers, Sir J. J.



Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Wragg, H.
Captain Margesson and Sir James


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Blind


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Young, A S. L. (Partick)



Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

SUPPLY.

Resolved,
That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—[Captain Margesson.]

WAYS AND MEANS.

Resolved,
That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—[Captain, Margesson.]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.

8.7 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Federal Court) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
It might be for the convenience of hon. Members, before we tackle this list of 12 Orders in Council, that I should say a word or two about them in general and make a suggestion about the manner in which they should be taken by the House. I suggest that we should take the first Order with what I hope will be

a short discussion alone, and that we should then take, in another short discussion, prefaced by a few explanatory remarks by myself, the two Governors' Allowances Orders for India and Burma, which cover the same ground, that we should then take the two Audit and Accounts Orders for India and Burma, which cover the same ground, that we should then, if hon. Members opposite agree, take, with suitable introductory remarks, the other smaller Orders in a fourth block, leaving to the fifth block the single Order relating to Family Pension Funds. If hon. Members opposite accept that, I think it will be for the convenience of the House.
May I say just a word about the Orders in general before coming to describe the Federal Court Order? The Orders have been arranged in this order partly through an effort to meet the convenience of the House and partly through a wish expressed by some hon. Members that the last Order on the Paper should have an opportunity of being discussed without feeling that there was other business following it which might prejudice its discussion. I do not mean by that to say, however, that it is more important than the other Orders, because I believe hon. Members opposite are interested in some of the earlier Orders, and they will therefore have a full opportunity of discussing them. I shall endeavour to point out the meaning of each Order in the case of which there is a corresponding Order for Burma by explaining the Indian Order shortly.
The Government very much hope that we may be able to get all these Orders this evening. They are all being submitted to the House according to the terms of the Government of India Act. The Orders in fact contain what I may describe as no new principle, in that they are all governed by the terms of the Act, but they do implement in some detail important decisions taken in the Act, and I realise that hon. Members would therefore wish to interest themselves in the details. If I may say so, they are less formidable than they look. They are a long list, but in most of the cases they implement in detail decisions already


taken by the House during the last Session. I realise that there are many hon. Members who may not have been in the last House, and to them these details may not be familiar, and if I can assist the House by making some preliminary observations, I shall be only too glad to do it. If I do not cover all the points in my opening remarks, hon. Members have only to put questions for me to attempt to do my best to answer them.
The first Order, the Federal Court Order, is necessitated by the fact that Provincial autonomy will, under the Commencement Order approved by Parliament, be started on 1st April next year. The Federal Court is charged under the Act with the duty of interpreting the Constitution and settling disputes between the Centre and the Provinces as to their respective jurisdiction. The necessity for a Court, therefore, will make itself little less felt under this Provincial autonomy than when the Federation itself is in being. It is impossible to foresee how soon after the commencement of Part III of the Act cases falling in the jurisdiction of the original or appellate court will be ripe for decision, but it is clear that a small bench of judges must be available within a few months after the establishment on 1st April next, and the purpose of this Order is, therefore, to bring into force the relevant provisions of the Act for that purpose.
Hon. Members, on studying the Order itself, will find that the conditions governing the salary of the Chief Justice are included in paragraph 4 and that the rest of the Order confines itself to describing the various other leave allowances and privileges of the Chief Justice. There are certain details connected with the other judges which are not included in this Order, but we wish to proceed with the Order in order to be able to proceed with certain preliminaries in the establishing of the Court, which is necessitated, as I have described, by the establishment of Provincial autonomy. Paragraph 3 has a certain importance. It brings into force the whole of Chapter 1, Part IX of the Act relating to the Federal Court, with the exception of two Sections, and it may perhaps assist hon. Members if I describe why these two Sections have been omitted.
The purpose of Section 206 was to enable the Federal Legislature to set up

a Supreme Court. I remember that when I was a member of the Joint Select Committee we discussed this matter at some length, and the ultimate decision was to leave it to the future Federal Legislature. There is no value in bringing into force that particular provision before the future Federal Legislature is set up, because the Joint Select Committee, and Parliament itself, in the Act, decided that the question of the Supreme Court must rest with the future Federal Legislature, and if there is no Federal Legislature, it is clearly undesirable that the Central Legislature should be given an opportunity to begin to consider this question before Federation itself is established. That is the reason for excepting Section 206.
There are somewhat similar considerations applying to Section 215, which is also excepted from this Order. This Section enables the Federal Legislature to confer on a Court such supplemental powers, not inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, as may appear to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of enabling the Court more effectively to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by or under this Act. Here also we feel that there is no necessity for invoking this Section so early in the course of its career, and it would be preferable that this power should be in abeyance until Federation is started and the Federal Legislature established. I have referred to the other Section which settled the conditions of service of the chief justice, and I think that with that explanation I have covered the salient points in the Federal Court Order. The Attorney-General is here in view of the importance of the question, and if there are any questions which hon. Members wish to put to him, he will be only too pleased to answer them.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In prefacing his remarks to the proposals which are being laid before the House, the Under-Secretary suggested a. certain procedure with regard to the discussion of the various Orders. Speaking for those who sit on these benches, I see no reason to quarrel with the proposal he makes in that respect. If we have a, discussion of these Orders in that way, and you, Sir, are pleased to accord your approval, I think that it will probably he for the convenience of the House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): If it is the general wish of the House, it would seem to me the most satisfactory way of conducting the business.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: With regard to these Orders as a whole, the position of those who sit on these benches is broadly this, that in the last Session of the previous Parliament the India Act was carried into law, and that, although there was a considerable divergence in the House on the provisions of that Act, and we on these benches by no means found ourselves in support of the Act as a whole, we recognise that the Act is now law and that these Orders are being made in conformity with it. As long as they fulfil that purpose, we, obviously, cannot raise over again the points on which we were at variance with the Government in the passing of the original Act. Therefore, so far as these Orders are concerned, it must be, in the main, a question of detail rather than of principle which we can discuss.
With regard to the first Order on the list, we recognise, of course, that the appointment and the conditions of appointment and service of these judges must necessarily be provided for. I would like to ask one or two questions with regard to these appointments. I do not think it is stated in the Order how many judges it is proposed to set up, and I should be glad if we may be informed on that point. I am not clear from what the Under-Secretary said whether these judges are entirely new appointments; whether judges who are at present in India carrying through the functions whch they have now to perform will be transferred to these appointments, or whether in fact the total personnel of the judges in India will be materially altered by this Order. This is an important point, because we shall then know how far the effect of the Act and of this Order will be seriously to enlarge the personnel of the courts of justice as they will be involved in India in future. The rest of the Order seems to me to follow fairly obvious form, and the only remaining question is whether the conditions of service applying to the judges in the Order are on all fours with the conditions of service of the judges in India at the present time.

8.21 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): In answer to the first question which the hon. Gentleman put to me, the intention at the moment is to appoint a chief justice and two judges. It is thought that that will be sufficient for the work that will fall on the court at present in the somewhat early days. The actual provision in the Government of India Act is that a federal court should consist of a chief justice of India and such number of other judges as His Majesty may deem necessary. I am sure the House will appreciate that it would have been impossible to put in a definite limit in the Act. The duties which the Court will have to perform necessarily cannot be foretold accurately in advance. There are enabling provisions in the Act by which the Federal Legislature, if and when it is set up, can confer additional powers on the Court. Therefore, the provision has to be elastic enough to enable a sufficient personnel to be established from time to time in order that the Court may efficiently carry on its duties.
The second question which the hon. Gentleman put was whether the Indian judges would be transferred to this Court, and whether the setting up of the Court would enlarge the personnel of the courts in India as a whole. It is always difficult to prophesy, but I think that it would be agreed that the fact that this court has to be set up to deal with the new problems which the new Constitution involves does not necessarily mean that there will be less litigation in the ordinary Provincial courts. The amount of litigation and the need for judges goes up and down for reasons which I have often heard discussed but never satisfactorily formulated. Whether the introduction of this new Constitution will for some intangible reason decrease the litigious claims in India or increase them, is a thing on which it would be rash to prophesy. The bulk of the work of this Court will be new work caused by new precedents arising out of the fact that there will be a Federal Constitution and possible disputes between the Centre and the Provinces.
The hon. Gentleman's final question was whether the conditions here were, broadly speaking, similar to those which apply to judges in India. The salaries of these judges is somewhat higher than the


salaries of the chief judges of Bengal, but I think the position of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court should necessarily carry a somewhat higher salary than in the case of Provincial High Courts. All the conditions are not verbatim the same, but, broadly speaking, the conditions as to allowances, equipment and so on are substantially the same.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now Adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
In moving this Order it may be advisable for me to explain to the House the reason why I asked for the discussion on the previous Order to be adjourned. It is essential that an Address to His Majesty from both Houses of Parliament should be presented in the same terms, and as that Order has to be considered in another place we cannot to-night come to a final decision on it. That Order will come before the House again for final approval. The Motion now before us deals with India, and there is a similar Motion on the Order Paper dealing with Burma. The hon. Gentleman opposite agreed that it would be for the convenience of the House to consider the India Order and the Burma Order together. The object of these two Orders is to lay before the House the provisions for the allowances and privileges of Governors in His Majesty's Indian Empire. The provisions in the Burma Order differ from those in the Indian Order chiefly in that they include a revised provision for the Governor's salary. The Governor's salary is to be raised by an amount which, while it is not a very large amount, will make it equivalent to the salary given to the Governors of those old Presidencies of Madras, Bombay and Bengal. I think that proposal will commend itself to hon. Members when they realise that the Governor of Burma will, in future, be the Governor of a separated Burma with a Constitution of no less

status than that afforded in general to India. Therefore, it is important that the Governor should receive a salary worthy of his position as Governor of a separated Burma.
The provisions of the Indian Order are somewhat interesting in that, for the first time in the history of British government in India, the whole of the allowances and privileges of the Governors are collected together on one sheet of paper. The history of the government of India, as hon. Members will not need telling, is an old one, and the history of the allowances and privileges given to our rulers or Governors in India is also an old one. I have read a statement of the East India Company referring to its own servants in which it referred to
the noble appointments settled upon the Governor which are intended to take in all the expenses he may be put to on the company's account.
That seems to have been the principle of the East India Company, and that is the principle of the Government at the present day, carrying on the ancient tradition of enabling a Governor to fulfil conveniently and with dignity the duties of his office. The whole object of this Order is to enable the Governor, and each Governor is specified in the Order, to fulfil conveniently and with dignity the duties of his office. The Order in detail deals first of all with the sums to be paid to each Governor for equipment and the voyage and for official motor cars on appointment. Those details are to be found in paragraph 4, and in the Second Schedule. The Order also specifies the residences to be used rent free by each Governor; all that is defined in paragraph 3 (Definition), paragraph 5 and in the First Schedule. In discussing these ancient houses I was tempted to look up again Lord Curzon's "British Government in India." He describes the romance of an old house, whether it be attached to a family or attached to a Governor, and says of the Government houses:
The house has, so to speak, a new lease of life and a fresh opportunity for adventure with each recurrent wave every four or five years. As one fugitive occupant after another disappears it alone survives as a witness to their career or fortunes. They vanish in the generations of man almost as swiftly as a meteor in the sky. But their trail still lingers behind them in the places which they inhabited and the walls are left to tell with silent eloquence the tale.


That is particularly true of our ancient Government houses in India, and I feel that it would have given great satisfaction to the Noble Marquess if he had realised that the Government house at Barrackpore which he loved so well is now to be included, after more than a century, as an official residence of the Governor. He reminds us that for more than a century Barrackpore, for the first time included in an Order-in-Council, was the rural resort of the Governor-General, and thither
up the river or by the road has moved a long procession of all the best and bravest in India.
He reminds us also of the many important and serious decisions taken there which made our Indian Empire what it is. I think it is a source of satisfaction to feel that it is scheduled as a residence of the Governor.
The third object of the Order is to enable provision to be made for the upkeep of these residences, to which I attach some importance. The furnishing of these residences is dealt with, in particular, in paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule and paragraph 7 (1 a) read with the Fourth Schedule. I am attempting to give hon. Members an opportunity of following the manner in which the Order is made up. In paragraph 7 (1 a) and the Fourth Schedule provision is made for certain forms of expenditure, first for the Governor's household staff, including the Presidency bodyguard, medical establishment, etc.; secondly, his entertaining expenses, referred to in the sumptuary allowances; thirdly, his miscellaneous expenses; and, fourthly, his touring expenses. One general observation is important at this stage, and that is to point out that the sums in all the Schedules are maxima, except those in the Second Schedule. It may be expected that the actual expenditure will not exceed these amounts and will probably fall below them, with the possible exception of the sumptuary allowances.
Hon. Members will be interested to know whether in this Order we are taking the opportunity to increase the amount. My answer in general to that would be that in fact this Order consolidates the existing position, and that in hardly any ease is there any increase. I have referred to a certain house scheduled as the Governor's residence, and there are

two other small examples, the houses at Netarhat and Jubbulpore. Those are additions to the Order.
The chief figures which are additional and new are those which provide for the new Provinces of Sind and Orissa. Those figures have naturally not appeared before, since these are new Provinces. With the exception of these, the figures are almost identical with those that have been produced before. There have been one or two minor adjustments in the case of the staff of the Governor, but in no case has any substantial increase been made. As regards the other figures in the Fourth Schedule, they are the dearest and easiest to follow owing to the manner in which the figures have been worked out upon the average of the last five years. I hope that that explanation will give hon. Members an opportunity of appreciating the Order in Council for India. In regard to the Order for Burma, I have described the chief change. There is one other small change in regard to the State Fund, which I do not think is more than a technical point. I hope that hon. Members will now allow the Order to pass.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have listened to the explanation given by the Under-Secretary and I appreciate, as in the case of the previous Order, that we are here entrusted with the implementing of the Clauses in the Act to which these Orders are attached. I further recognise that, if we are to have Governors in Burma and India, obviously they must have a certain state which they must keep up. What I am concerned about is whether it is necessary for them to have a considerable number of official residences which might add very considerably to the cost involved. I was rather distressed to hear from the Under-Secretary that we were actually adding to the existing residence. I could readily understand in Burma, where the situation is becoming different, that certain additions may be required, but I cannot quite understand why in Bengal it should be necessary to increase the residence provisions for the Governor and thereby necessarily add considerably to the expense.
I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that these are maximum figures in the majority of cases. Throughout the


world in these days the tendency is to reduce ceremonial expenditure of the courts of the world, and it would be a very unhappy thing if the granting of this measure of self-government in India were accompanied by the placing of additional burdens upon the backs of the people of that country. We have to remember that we are trustees for the people. Though there are a certain number of very rich houses, in the main these people are one of the very poorest in the world. In view of that, we ought not to impose upon them any burdens which could reasonably be avoided. We should have a little more explanation by whoever is to reply, as to why it has been found necessary to add even to this small extent to the palaces in which the Governors are to live. I should have thought that it might have been found possible somewhat to reduce the number of Governors' residences, and therefore to reduce the burden. I should like to be told how far it may be possible in later years for the people in India to reduce the cost of these institutions with which we deal in this Order.

8.41 p.m.

Captain CAZALET: While appreciating the object of the hon. Member's remarks that no unnecessary extravagance should be encouraged, I think that if he recognises the conditions of the Governor of Bengal to-day, he will recognise that it is essential for the convenience of the Governor to have some other residence outside Calcutta itself. While that residence is convenient in some respects, it is, in other respects, somewhat inconveniently placed. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not alter his views on that matter. I am certain that the people of India like to see their Governors' and their Government houses properly conducted. Poor as they are, they are willing to make such contributions from the Provincial Funds as will see that those establishments are properly maintained. When the Schedules in the Act were being discussed, I raised this question, and I am very grateful to the Government for meeting my points so fully. I feel that under these allowances and regulations, Governors can conduct themselves and their offices conveniently and with dignity.
The only real grievance we had before —it is remedied now—is in regard to

personal effects. As I understand it, by Clause 9, although the Under-Secretary did not refer to it, it is possible that Governors—I do not know whether Commanders-in-Chief are covered—might in future take out to India certain personal effects which are purely for convenience to himself, family or staff and the dignity of his office, without having to pay the excessive Customs duties which he would have to pay to-day. One other small point is that I do not quite know how the Governor-General comes into this matter at all, or whether a special Order will have to be issued in regard to him. At present, the Regulations apply to the Viceroy and to the Governor-General. I see that paragraph (d) of Clause 9 of this Order deals with motor cars provided for the use of the Governor. I do not know whether the same motor car is regarded as his only means of conveyance, but it is most probable that, in the very large States, aeroplanes will in future be used. For the sake of drafting the Order anew, I wonder whether it would be worth going through the elaborate process of making a new Order, but it seems to me that aeroplanes should be encouraged in a country as large as India. I do not know whether this is the opportunity to alter the words so as to cover them.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I will do my best to answer the points which have been raised by hon. Members. The additions to the list of Governors' houses is not so formidable as was suggested. I was seized with the romance of these ancient houses, but in reality the places mentioned in the Schedule have been Governors' houses for many years. The only slight difference is that technically, in the case of Bengal, they will have an additional Governor's house. Otherwise no serious additional burden will be imposed upon the Indian taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman also asked for a little more explanation as to whether this Order could be adapted by the Legislatures if any eventual alteration were needed, and I think a similar question was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet). The method of changing the Order-in-Council is by amendment of the Order, and, therefore, the contents of the Order would have to be amended by a fresh Order-in-Council.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It would have to come before this House?

Mr. BUTLER: It would have to come before this House. The House will naturally interest itself in these matters. The hon. Gentleman expressed a wish to reduce the cost of these institutions. I understand his point of view, but, in the stress of life which government involves in India, we believe that these institutions are the minimum which will enable the Governor to carry out his duties con-veniently and with dignity, and, therefore, we have been forced to include them; but, as the hon. Gentleman will see, there are no very substantial additions to the list.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham drew attention, very rightly, to the Customs privileges which were inserted in the Order in response to an Amendment which he moved while the Bill was going through. It is a source of gratification to me to draw the attention of the House to these additional privileges, which correspond with the privileges enjoyed by those who serve His Majesty abroad in a diplomatic capacity. Governors have been asking for them for many years. My hon. and gallant Friend asked whether the Commander-in-Chief and the Governor-General were included. The Commander-in-Chief is not included in this Order. The Governor-General has these facilities, and an Order is not necessary to provide him with them.

Captain CAZALET: Is that under the Government of India Act?

Mr. BUTLER: He had them before the present Act. As to the means of conveyance if my hon. and gallant Friend will turn to paragraph 7 (1) (b) of the Order, he will see that a provision is included for the renewal or replacement of the Governor's official aircraft. We inserted that provision in the Order because we believe that the use of aircraft saves a great deal of money to the Indian taxpayer. It is a cheaper form of conveyance than the large railway saloons which have been used in the past, and the late Viceroy set an admirable example himself by travelling so much by aeroplane, thus saving the taxpayer the cost of policing the route, accelerating progress, and being a great deal less expensive.

Captain CAZALET: I understood my hon. Friend to say that the Governor-General is covered by the recent Government of India Act, but he certainly did not have these privileges a year or two ago. Do I understand that he has been covered in a special Schedule to the Act, so that it is not necessary to include him in these Orders?

Mr. BUTLER: I understand that the position will have to be regularised, and I am glad that my bon. and gallant Friend has given me the opportunity of making this clear, by a separate Order at a later date, but he will not be included in this Order, which deals solely with the Governors. I hope that, with these explanations, the House will agree to adjourn the Debate on the Order.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Governor's Salary, Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
I think it will be for the convenience of hon. Members if, with this Order, we consider the similar Order relating to Burma. The Government of India Act, 1935, made provision for the appointment of an Auditor-General of India and an Auditor of Indian Home Accounts, but left the definition of their powers and functions, together with the conditions of service of the Auditor-General of India, to be prescribed by the Order-in-Council which is now before us. Paragraphs 3 to 10 lay down the conditions of service of the Auditor-General of India. Those


conditions are closely modelled on the rules which govern the office of the Auditor-General in India in present circumstances. Following upon these paragraphs, the draft Order deals with the powers and duties of the Auditor-General in India. His functions are, first of all, that lie is the principal keeper of Government accounts, his duties under this head being laid down in paragraphs 11 and 12; and the second and perhaps more important aspect of his functions is provided for in paragraph 13. The whole of this part of the Order may be said to include provisions designed simply to continue the existing well-tried system of audit and accounts in India, and, so far as they are appropriate, the existing statutory rules governing audit and accounts in India are taken as the basis.
In paragraphs 20 and 21, provision is made for the conduct in the United Kingdom of audit by the Auditor of Indian Home Accounts. This is the auditor who resides at the India Office and audits the Indian Home Accounts. As regards the scope of his duties, the existing position is maintained, the only modification of importance arising from the fact that, while at present the Auditor of Indian Home Accounts is independent of the Auditor-General, he will in future be under the general superintendence of the latter. Hon. Members who are interested in, for instance, the Public Accounts Committee of this House, and in the keeping of accounts and the problem of audit, will see that it is provided in paragraph 13 that the Auditor-General shall report on the expenditure, transactions or accounts so audited by him. In India there is a, body similar to the Public Accounts Committee, and it is to that body that the Auditor-General of India will report.
The Auditor of Home Accounts, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) will appreciate, will not be able to attend in person before the Indian Accounts Committee, and that is why it is provided that he shall be under the general superintendence of the Auditor-General in India, although he will in fact audit separately the Indian Home Accounts at home. It is important that there should be some link between him and the Auditor-General in India. This arrangement continues almost exactly the existing process, but it ties

up the Auditor of Indian Home Accounts to the Auditor-General in India. Besides his duties in regard to auditing, which are not restricted in any important degree, the Auditor-General in Indian is asked, as I pointed out in my initial remarks, to produce a general financial statement, which is referred to in the paragraph previous to the one I have just quoted. That financial statement is based upon his accounting function, and in it he gives a general statement of the accounts, as well as reporting later as Auditor-General upon the accounts which have been audited. I think I have described the main provisions of the Order; if there are any more detailed points, I shall be glad to do my best to answer them.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have been much interested in the description given by the Under-Secretary of the duties of the Auditor-General, because it has to some extent cleared up one of the difficulties that I had with regard to this matter. But, although the hon. Gentleman has cleared it up in his statement, I do not quite see where the Order deals with the point to which I am going to make special reference. Before coming to that, I should like to ask a preliminary question. In the first Order that we took, the Federal Court Order, we were arranging for the appointment of wholly new officials. In this case we are also dealing with the appointment of an officer whose functions are largely defined in the India Act. I understand from the Under-Secretary that there is an Auditor-General under the existing Constitution, and therefore I gather that what will in effect take place is that the existing Auditor-General will have somewhat wider powers. Perhaps I may be told whether that is a correct deduction from what the Under-Secretary said earlier on. Are we to have an additional officer or are we merely going to take the two officials, the Auditor-General and the home auditor here, and give them somewhat different powers from what they have at present?
The point in which I was specially interested was the question of how far the Auditor-General was going to report to the Legislative Assembly. Of


course, the essential characteristic of the Auditor and Comptroller-General of this country is that he is not a Government official but a House of Commons official who makes his report to the House of Commons and justifies, of otherwise, the financial acts of the Government and relates them to the provision that the House of Commons has made. When I read this Order, before I heard the Under-Secretary's explanation, I was under the impression that the Auditor-General would not have any intimate relations with the Legislative Assembly, and that his report would be made to the Governor-General. If I understand the Under-Secretary aright the audit and the report are to be made to the body that he said corresponded with the Public Accounts Committee of this country. If that is, in fact, the intention of the Order, why is it not stated so? Because it makes a very great deal of difference to whom the report is rendered. All the other sections of the Order suggest that the person who is to receive the report is the Governor-General, and I was under the impression that he was the only person who was to receive it, except that Clause 15 says:
It shall be the duty of the Auditor-General to give the Federal Government and the Government of every Province such information as they may from time to time require.
Now I understand that, in addition to the duty of auditing and reporting to the Governor-General and assisting the Governors, the Auditor-General will have certain duties to the elected representatives, at any rate of the Federal Assembly. I shall be glad to know whether the interpretation that I am now putting on it is, in fact, correct.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. For a short time I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Had I been there longer, I suppose I should have learned more about accounts. It is one of the most important Committees of the House. The Order says:
The Auditor-General shall in each case report on the expenditure, transactions or accounts so audited by him.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty to be that in the Order it is not

laid down specifically to whom the report shall be made. Section 169 of the Act says:
The reports of the Auditor-General of India relating to the accounts of the Federation shall be submitted to the Governor-General, who shall cause them to be laid before the Federal Legislature, and the reports of the Auditor-General of India or of the Auditor-General of the Province, as the case may be, relating to the accounts of a Province shall be submitted to the Governor of the Province, who shall cause them to be laid before the Provincial Legislature.
The difference between this country and India is that the Auditor-General in India is appointed, as Section 166 says, by His Majesty and that he shall report to the Governor-General in the case of the Federation and to the Governor in the case of a Province. In each case the Governor-General and the Governor shall lay the reports before the Federal and Provincial Legislatures. It is at that stage that the reports get laid before a committee equivalent to our Public Accounts Committee. Here at home the Auditor-General is the servant of this House and reports direct to the House, whereas in India the circumstances are governed by Sections 169 and 166 of the Act itself. I hope that clears up the point.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I understand the Under-Secretary to tell us that this is only continuing the procedure that exists at present and that the Auditor-General reports to what corresponds to the Public Accounts Committee in India. There is a good deal of difference, and not merely a technical difference, between the Governor laying it before the Committee of the House and reporting to the House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not in Committee. I thought he wanted to ask a question.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sorry if I was doing more than that. I was only endeavouring to ask a question to explain the grounds on which I was putting the point. It may be that the Auditor-General in India is too busy a man to sit with that body, but are we to understand that either he or some deputy will be there to be cross-examined or interrogated by the responsible committee? That would give the committee


very much greater power. Can the Under-Secretary assure us that that is the intention?

Mr. BUTLER: That is, in fact, the intention that the committee shall have the privilege of seeing the Auditor-General in person, and he will collaborate with them in the fullest sense of the word.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can you not put that in the Order?

Mr. BUTLER: I understand the Auditor-General has in the past been accustomed to attend the meetings of this committee, and I think the hon. Gentleman may take it that the position that he desires is fully secured, and that will continue in future.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament, subject, however, to the following Amendment:
In the third recital, page 1, line 26, leave out '1937,' and insert '1936.'"[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Commencement and Transitory Provisions) (No. 2) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
I suggest that this particular Order should be taken with the other five Orders following, which are of a minor character, and that I should endeavour to give a general explanation of all of them, which, I understand, will meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen. This particular Order provides for a very small matter. Provision for the appointment by the Secretary of State of the Government director and his deputy is contained in the case

of most Indian railway companies in the contracts. Under Section 199 of the Government of India Act, 1935, the powers of appointment pass in effect to the Central Government. But the appointments of Government director in one case, with his deputy in more than one case are governed not by the contracts but by Acts of Parliament. The most convenient way of adapting those Acts to the new constitutional position is to bring Section 199 of the Government of India Act into force on 1st April next. The reference in that section to the consultation with the Federal Railway Authority must, of course, be held in abeyance until the establishment of the Authority. That is the explanation of paragraph 3 of the Commencement and Transitory Provisions Order.
Paragraph 4 relates to the Budget statement of expenditure for the year 1937–38. This has to be placed before the Legislature in the usual way some time before 1st April next. As matters stand, the form of Budget and the question of votability would be governed by the old Government of India Act, 1919. This is obviously very inconvenient. The expenditure for which this Budget provides will have to be administered and accounted for under the transitional constitution when, for example, such new features as the Crown Department, which administers affairs for the States, and functions vested in the Governor-General in his discretion will have come into being. So the object of this is simply to adapt the terminology of the Budget statement to the new constitutional position in the interim period. Therefore, these two particular points in this small Order are in the nature of adaptations from the old system to the new.
With regard to the Defence Appointments Order, in the past the defence appointments have not been made in quite the uniform way that is suggested under this particular Order. Appointments to certain high military posts are at present reserved to be made by the Secretary of State for India, and in one or two cases by the Secretary of State for War. Under this particular Order—the Defence Appointments Order—it is simply stated that all these appointments shall be made by His Majesty. No doubt hon. Members will wish to know what sort of officers are to be appointed in this


manner and how important they are. There is, first of all, the Royal Indian Navy—the Flag Officer Commanding. In the case of the Army, General Officers Commanding-in-Chief in the four Commands, North, South, East and West; Chief of the General Staff, Adjutant-General, Quartermaster-General, Master-General of the Ordnance, and the officers commanding the various districts. They number about a dozen. That is the extent of the Orders which are in future to be centralised and made by His Majesty under the provisions of the Government of India Act. In the case of Burma, the General Officer Commanding in Burma shall be appointed by His Majesty. I would remind the House that in future Burma, being separated, will have an independent command. Hitherto it has been a quasi-district, but in future it will be a command of its own, the Governor himself being in control of the defence forces of Burma.
In the case of the next Order—the Federal Legislature Amendment Order—we are faced with one of those rare occasions in the Government of India Act where a little matter was overlooked. In this case it was overlooked that the State of Khaniadhana, which was previously included in the Central Indian Agency, was on 1st January, 1935, included in the political charge of the Resident at Gwalior. This State was omitted, and it was regarded as important to take this opportunity of making a small amendment in the list of States sending representatives either themselves or by deputy to the Indian Legislature by correcting the list and including the State of Khaniadhana.
The next Order relates to the Provincial Legislatures and includes certain miscellaneous provisions. The first provision it includes is to enable the present Advisers in the Provinces of Sind and Orissa who have salaried posts to stand for election in the coming elections in certain Provinces in India, otherwise they would, owing to holding these posts, be unable to take part in the elections and the political life of the Provinces. This was not intended, and this correction is important in that it will enable distinguished persons assisting the Government in the transitory period to take part in provincial elections.
The fourth paragraph has to do with the Corrupt Practices Order. The Government of India have reported to us that it is becoming an increasingly common practice on the part of the Commissioners to pass an Order in terms which sometimes mean that the man who loses his case in an election petition is charged with the whole cost of the Government in making the inquiry. The result has been that there has been a tendency for people not to bring their cases before these commissioners and the object of the Corrupt Practices Order has not been fully carried out. Therefore, we are making this small Amendment in order to enable the proper spirit to prevail in these corrupt practice appeals. In the case of Burma there is a similar provision for amendment of the Corrupt Practices Order, which I moved in the last Session and for an amendment of another small detail in paragraph (3) of the Burma Order regarding the qualification of a senator contained in paragraph (6) of the Burma Elections Order. This is purely a technical Order and a small mistake which we want to correct before the new Constitution. I hope, therefore, that these small explanations of these particular Orders and their contents will enable hon. Members to realise that in the case of these particular Orders which we are taking en bloc the questions are mostly ones of detail and of technicalities. I hope that I have covered all the points in them, and that hon. Members will be able to come to a decision on these questions.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The first of these Orders seems to be a matter of machinery only, and I do not intend to ask for any further information. The next Order relating to Defence Appointments, as I understand the effect of the Order, is to reserve about 20 appointments in all to His Majesty to make. What I take to be the result of that course is that the appointments will be made by His Majesty acting on the advice of his Ministers in the Government of this country. Therefore, it would take the appointment of these officers out of the hands of anyone in India. I should like an explanation of the effect of the Section of the Act under which


this Order is made. I refer to Section 233 (2) which says:
Nothing in this Section derogates from any power vested in His Majesty by virtue of any Act or by virtue of his Royal prerogative.
Here are some 20 appointments which are reserved to His Majesty. Am I to understand from the Sub-section which I have quoted that at any time the Government of this country can go to His Majesty and add to the list of official appointments which will be reserved to His Majesty acting on the advice of the Government of this country? If so, that seems to me to be a position which the people of India may very well resent. It is from their point of view already a serious thing that 20 leading appointments in the defence forces of their country are to be settled entirely over their heads, but if there is no finality in the matter and other appointments can be placed in the same category, it seems to me that that would create a position to which they might rightly take considerable exception.
I should like further to ask whether the number of these appointments can at any time be reduced, and if so, on whose instruction would that be the case? I imagine that the answer will be similar to the one I received on a similar Order, namely, that there would have to be a further Order modifying the existing Order and that it would have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament and receive the assent of the King. I do not think it is necessary to say anything about the Burma defence arrangements, because they follow on the same lines, but in that case there is only one appointment. Little need be said in regard to the Federal Legislature Amendment. In regard to Burma, I am at a loss to understand the position under the Government of Burma (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order. Section 3 is a paragraph which refers to Income Tax. I have tried to understand it without very much effect. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me an explanation on that point.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I gather that the hon. Member's difficulty, if I may answer him by permission of the House, is chiefly in regard to the Defence Appointments Order. My answer in general is, that the

whole of defence in India is a reserved subject. Therefore, there can be no particular disappointment that certain high defence appointments should in themselves be reserved, when the whole subject of defence is reserved. The hon Member asks whether the number can be reduced, and, if so, by whom. He also asks what powers have we to add to the number of appointments. The power of amendment of this particular Order lies with the House of Commons and Parliament and, therefore, lies in the hands of hon. Members themselves. The Order can only be amended by an amending Order. In reality, although this Order looks very important it only regularises, according to the Section in the Act to which the hon. Member referred, the present position. As I tried to make clear in my original remarks, instead of these Orders being made some by the Secretary of State for India and in other cases by the Secretary of State for War, the whole matter is centralised and these arrangements are said to be made by His Majesty. Therefore, the answer to the hon. Member is that defence is reserved, that there can be nothing very remarkable in these high appointments themselves being specified in the Order, and that the Order would have to be amended by the Imperial Parliament whether to the extent that the appointments be added to or that they be subtracted from.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Suppose there was no such Order, by whom would these appointments be made? I take it that they would be made by the Government of India or the Governor-General. The hon. Member says that no exception can be taken to these Orders, but there is a feeling in India which is expressed in the phrase that it is not government in Delhi but government in Whitehall.

Mr. BUTLER: It was the object of the Government of India Act and was laid down clearly that there would be reserved to His Majesty certain high defence appointments. Those appointments can only be added to or subtracted from by another Order.
The hon. Member asks for the meaning of sub-paragraph 12 (1) (i) of the Third Schedule of the Burma Act. If he turns to the Burma Act he will see that that particular sub-paragraph reads:


was, in the financial year preceding that in which the election is held, assessed to income-tax in Burma on an income of twelve thousand rupees a year or over.
We find that there was a misstatement regard the income tax qualification required by a senator, contained in paragraph 6 of the Burma Senate Election Order, which I explained last Session, with all its complications. To-day, in order to regularise the position we have been obliged to move an Amendment to insert the words:
having in that year a total income of not less than 12,000 rupees.
Our object has been to correct the mistake in paragraph 6 of the Burma Senate Election Order and there is nothing deep or sinister in our doing that.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Defence Appointments) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Defence Appointments) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Federal Legislature Amendment) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Provincial Legislatures) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1938, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Legislature) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament on 3rd November, 1936.
This matter of Family Pension Funds is one of considerable importance, in that it deals with the dependants of certain Indian pensioners, subscribers to the funds, set out in paragraph 7 of the Order before us. It is one of some lengthy history, as it is natural that pensioners should be interested in the future of these funds on which their dependants will depend. It was considered in detail by the Joint Select Committee and, to put it shortly, there was an original scheme proposed, largely at the instance of subscribers and for which they had been pressing for some years, that the funds should be vested in commissioners at home, and that the balance in the name of subscribers in India should be transferred home as soon as possible. The idea is that these funds should gradually go back. In a note to the Joint Select Committee the then Secretary of State


suggested a period of 12 years. This period was shortened at the instance of the subscribers to three years, and this was the figure finally included in the Government of India Act.
This Order was laid on 21st April, and we had intended to ask Parliament to approve it in July last, but at the request of subscribers, and in order that they should not be rushed in this important matter, we extended the period for three months. The Order has in this period undergone some not unimportant amendments, and subscribers have been given the opportunity to consider the issues before them. We have distributed much information from the India Office in the circulars to subscribers, and I should like to pay tribute to the manner in which the associations representing the subscribers have done their best to bring their views on this matter before the subscribers. I say this to show that every opportunity has been taken to enable subscribers to decide on a matter of importance to them. It is only when the Order is passed that the subscribers have to make their choice whether the funds are brought home or not. If they say nothing the funds are brought home, but the Order contains provision for objections to be made, in paragraph 18 and the following paragraphs.
If objections to transfer are made the funds belonging to subscribers who do not wish to transfer will be left as at present with the Government of India. The period of choice is up to 31st March, 1937, and by that time they will have had the information before them almost a year. The choice in this matter must be that of the subscribers. It is not a choice for the Government to make or which hon. Members can make. Hon. Members can assist the Government in criticising the terms of this Order, but the choice is one that must be made by the subscribers, and any steps taken by the Government have been conscientiously taken to enable subscribers to make up their minds and to achieve the results they desire. The Government have taken steps to inform them by circular, in May, 1933, when some preliminary figures were given of the amount likely to be drawn if the funds were transferred, and in April, 1936, when a further circular was issued giving some detailed figures of the likely reduction involved due to the different rates of interest here and in India. The total

amount in question is about £12,000,000. Certain steps were also taken by the associations to which I have referred who also issued a statement on these funds, and I can only say that if this statement was somewhat more optimistic than that of the Government, so much the better for the pensioner if their optimism was justified.
The Order sets out in the first part the nature of the fund, that is paragraphs 2 and 3; paragraphs 4 to 9 set out the duties and constitution of the body of Commissioners; paragraphs 10 to 13 relate to the vesting of the funds in the Commissioners, and paragraph 12 sets out the stocks in which the Commissioners shall invest the funds when they are brought home; paragraphs 14 to 17 deal with the functions of the Secretary of State, who will continue to have a large part in the administration of the funds; and paragraphs 18 to 21 deal with the objections to transfer. I would refer in conclusion to the importance of the Order, in that there is a large body of dependants of men in the Army and Civil Service who have rendered great serive to India and whose interests it is the wish of the Government to preserve. We have included in the Government of India Act a provision that the fund should be brought home and it is now for Parliament to decide on the terms of this Order, which we believe to contain the best possible terms in the circumstances. If the Order is passed the subscribers must decide whether they object to the transfer or whether the fund in question shall be brought back and invested in the Commissioners in this country.

9.36 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
subject, however, to the following Amendment:
In paragraph 17, on page 5, lines 28 to 30, leave out 'from time to time make such alterations in any pension payable out of the said funds as may in his opinion be reasonably necessary in consequence of the transfers,' and insert having obtained from an actuary a report on any of the funds, make such alterations in any pensions payable out of that fund as may appear to him after consideration of the report to be reasonably necesary in consequence of the transfer of that fund.'
Before I come to the terms of my Amendment I should like to make a few


general remarks about the Family Pension Funds. The Under-Secretary of State told us that a Draft Order was laid on the Table of the House some months ago but on the application of the pensioners themselves it was postponed. We now have this new Order before us. I should like to indicate that the Pensioners Associations, those with which I am connected are grateful to the India Office, and particularly to the Under-Secretary of State for the patience with which has has considered their requests and has embodied in the present Order several of the suggestions for improvement which were made by the associations. As the House has been informed there are several Funds concerned, and in some cases the funds do not exist except in the form of an obligation on the part of the Government of India the administration of the funds having always been maintained at the India Office. The question of their transfer from India was warmly advocated by witnesses who came before the Joint Select Committee on behalf of the association, and it was with great gratification that most of us at that time learnt that the then Secretary of State was able to promise to bring home these funds at a much earlier date than was at first thought possible. That was received at the time with great satisfaction because the attitude of the Pensioners' Associations has been that if tic British Government could not guarantee the payment of these pensions they might be brought home and invested in gilt-edged securities and other similar stock under the care of Commissioners, who would deal with the investments, while the administrative part of the work connected with these funds would continue to be performed by the Secretary of State.
I am aware that there has been a change of opinion on the part of some of the pensioners who have been alarmed by the fact that the actuarial report indicated a larger reduction in the pensions brought home than they had previously anticipated. Personally I do not share the opinion that a reduction in the pension should override the importance of getting these funds transferred into sterling and held under the charge of Commissioners. Whether the Government of India will be able to perform

its obligations will depend on what will actually be the future of India so many years ahead that there is not one of us in England or in India who can prophesy with any certainty what is likely to happen at so distant a date as that at which the last claim on this fund will have to be met. When asked for advice by dependants on the fund I have always given the advice that unless the pensioner is of an advanced age and is so dependent on the pension that even a small reduction will cause penury, in those cases where it is not expected that the pensioner will survive for many years, it may be to their advantage to leave the money under the present conditions. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Major Mills) will explain the case of pensioners and subscribers who wish to have the funds left in India for the present but with a second choice a few years hence to enable them to transfer if they so wish. I am glad that their views should be represented to this House.
Now I will turn to the Amendment which refers to the power of the Secretary of State to make such alterations in any pension as may in his opinion be necessary in consequence of the transfers effected under this Order. I am not one of those who imagines that the Secretary of State is going to act in an inconsiderate way but at the same time we must have in a document of this kind more precise language and I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to accept the Amendment and put in a condition that any reduction of the pension must be made in accordance with the report of an actuary and cannot be made by the Secretary of State for any such reason that it would be a good thing to reduce pensions. I hope also that the Under-Secretary will give an assurance that the practice which has been in force for the last 15 years will be continued. That practice is simply this. The then Secretary of State, Lord Peel, consented to a request by the Indian Civil Service Retired Association that an actuary suggested by themselves should co-operate with the Government actuaries at the time of the quinquennial revision and give his comments and opinion, which was a satisfaction to the pensioners that there were two opinions on the actuarial position. In that way they would be reassured as to the state


of the Fund. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to see his way to give a promise in this connection, even if it is not a thing which can be conveniently put in the Order.

9.46 p.m.

Major MILLS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not propose to take up the time of the House by adding to the arguments which my hon. Friend adduced, though it will obviously be a relief to the Secretary of State to act on the Actuary's report, but I would like to take this opportunity of making a few remarks on another aspect of these family pensions and to raise a point and ask a question on Clause 18, which immediately follows the one to which this Amendment has been moved. The point I wish to raise on Clause 18 I will explain as briefly as I can. On 9th April, 1935, when the House was in Committee on the family pensions Clause, I suggested to the then Secretary of State that pensioners and beneficiaries who decided to leave their money in India should be given a second chance of bringing it home at a. later date if they so desired. The Secretary of State did not, in his answer, say that it was technically impossible to do that because of anything contained in the Bill itself, but he said:
I am afraid that they must make the decision now. It would naturally be very difficult to carry through the proceedings if we did not know—I do not say in a few days or weeks—what is the sum to be left in India and what is the sum to be funded here. The option therefore must be once and for all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1935; col. 899, Vol. 300.]
I would like to underline the word "therefore," which shows that obviously he had in mind the financial and actuarial difficulties. I had hoped to be able to move an Amendment to this Clause with the object of giving the people who left their money in India a second option of transferring it home in five years' time, but on consulting my hon. Friend he told me that for certain reasons it would not be in order to do so, and that the only thing that would be in order would be to substitute, in the first line of the Clause, the year 1942 for the year 1937. That, of course, would mean a simple delay and would not be in accordance with my views, nor, I imagine, with those of anybody else. I

come now to the question I want to ask my hon. Friend. The Order will be passed—I hope with this Amendment embodied in it—money will be brought home and money will be left in India, and the transfer will be completed. Is there any reason why the Secretary of State should not, of his own accord, at some later date—say in five years' time—put forward another Order in Council giving another chance to the people who leave their money in India now to bring it back to Great Britain?
In the alternative, if that is not possible, could not the Secretary of State make a rule or regulation having the same object? Let me explain what I mean by the alternative. As I understand it, when the Fund has been set up it will be regulated by a rule made by the Secretary of State under the authority of Parliament. Could not the Secretary of State, when this original transfer has been completed, at some later date, make a rule allowing other similar subscribers to transfer their accumulations from India to the Fund in Great Britain, particularly if it were found that it would be to the advantage of both sides? Is there anything in the main Act which would prevent it? I do not believe that the financial and actuarial difficulties are as great as appeared to the Secretary of State in April, 1935, and I am sure they are not insurmountable. At that time they were his reasons for refusing the suggestion.
The reason I am so insistent in inquiring what, if anything, can be done in the matter is that it involves the fortunes of a very large number of people who deserve the best that their country can give them. There are at least 10,000 of these pensioners and beneficiaries. They are faced with a substantial loss of income if they bring their money home, and they find it extremely difficult to make up their minds what to do when the Government of India is in its present transitional state. I would like to know what the Secretary of State has decided to do about the subscriptions of new entrants, for it is his responsibility to look after them. Is he going to have those subscriptions invested in India or in Great Britain? That is a matter on which I would like enlightenment, which would also be of great interest to the pensioners.
At Question Time to-day I asked my hon. Friend
whether any representations have been received from associations representing civil servants or military officers, either active or retired, asking to be allowed at a later date to have a second option to transfer their share in the Family Pensions Funds from India to England?
I received the following written answer:
The answer is in the affirmative, but my Noble Friend is advised that the provision for a second option would be ultra vires to the Government of India Act, 1935.
That answer bears out my information that representations have been made by at least four important associations of pensioners and by other people through appropriate channels. I think that the India Office should give the most sympathetic attention to the widely-expressed wishes of so many of these good servants of our country. After all, it is out of their own savings that these pensions are being paid. What is more, it would be a great help in getting the right type of young man to continue to go out to India if he felt that he had the sympathetic and helpful India Office behind him. I am certain that nothing divides us in principle on this matter. We are all sympathetic in that we wish to do the best we can for these pensioners. I do not wish to ask my hon. Friend for any promise for a second option, because I know he cannot give it; but I ask him to consider whether, with all the skill, the knowledge and the sympathy that there is in the India Office, some way cannot be found—either such as I have suggested or otherwise—by which the Secretary of State could, if he chose, at some later date after the original transfer has been carried out, give the people who do not transfer now a second chance, particularly if at that time a widespread demand for it is brought to his attention.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I am very glad to be able to say that I can accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government. We think it will be valuable for the Secretary of State to be aided by the continuance of the system as it will be under this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) asked whether the services could rely upon the continuance of the present system, which I shall describe, in the terms of a communication

from a previous Secretary of State to the representatives of the service associations. The Secretary of State of that date—1923—said that he would offer to any properly qualified actuary nominated by the Indian Civil Service retired association an opportunity of conducting an independent investigation of the position of the Indian Civil Service Pension Scheme. His Lordship wished it to be understood that his compliance on that occasion with the wish expressed to him to obtain further actuarial information did not imply any intention to divest himself in any degree of the absolute control and management of the scheme then vested in him. I am authorised to say that that arrangement may, from the point of view of the Secretary of State, certainly continue. If that will give any assurance or satisfaction to the members of the service associations, I hope they will accept my remarks in the spirit in which I make them.
The only caveat I would enter is this. As far as I have been able to investigate, in the short time available, the legal position in regard to the cost of the actuary, there may be some change in the present position in that respect. Apart from that, it is certainly our intention that the spirit of the old agreement under which this particular actuary works shall continue. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Major Mills) asked whether it would be possible for those who may decide of their own free will to leave the money in India, to have an opportunity of joining the fund in the future. My difficulty in this respect was expressed in my answer to his question to-day. Such a proposal would be ultra vires the Government of India Act which says that subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 273 these funds
shall be transferred to the Commissioners before the expiration of three years from the said date, either all at one time or by instalments together with such interest as may be prescribed by or under the Order.
Therefore, it would be impossible to achieve the result which my hon. and gallant Friend desires by Order in Council. He referred to the possibility of dealing with other matters by Order in Council, but in this case an amendment of the Act would be necessary and I am


authorised to say that it is not the intention of the Government to amend the Act in this respect. The Government has, as it believes, responded to the request from hon. Members and from subscribers to frame a plan for the transference of these funds or otherwise at the choice of the subscribers. The Government in the Debates in the House of Commons while expressing their confidence in the future credit of India, produced this plan in the manner and for the reasons described and their intention is that the choice shall be made either for or against this plan. I sympathise with what my hon. and gallant Friend said as to there being many who, through anxiety or nervousness, would like to defer a decision on this matter but I can assure him also that a vast body of subscribers wish to make a decision here and now and feel that further uncertainty may make it impossible to create a fund. That is why the Government is not able to amend the Act in the way desired.
My hon. and gallant Friend asked a further question about new entrants. No public announcement has yet been made by us on this point. In fact we have not yet reached a decision. We shall leave that question until the condition of the fund, as between those who wish to leave the money in India and those who wish to transfer it has been made clear. When we have a clear idea about those who decide in the one way and those who decide in the other, we shall then make a decision about new entrants. I am sorry that I have not been able to go all the way towards meeting the views of the hon. Members who have spoken but I am glad to be able to accept the Amendment and I hope that the subscribers will find it possible, in the months remaining before the end of March to come to a conclusion upon this important matter. It has been throughout the wish of the Government to provide facilities, for those who are not desirous to leave their funds in India, to bring them home, if such be their desire.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

10.2 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 21) Order, 1936, dated the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.
For some time, there have been on the Order Paper eight Orders under the Import Duties Act of 1932. It is proposed to-night to move the adoption of the first six of those Orders, leaving Orders Nos. 28 and 29, which concern steel, to be dealt with on another occasion. I suggest, with your approval, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, that we should follow the procedure which has been followed previously on these occasions, and that I should make an introductory speech, covering the whole six Orders, leaving it to the House to take a Division on any Order, if they so wish, and offering replies to any questions which may be raised on any Order. The Orders are Nos. 21, 24, 25, 26 and 27 and Exemption Order No. 7, and they deal with such diverse subjects as tiles, band knives, typewriters, hot-water bottles, granite and potassium nitrate. I do not think that the House will feel much difficulty in accepting these recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Order No. 21 deals with glazed wall and hearth tiles and replaces the existing ad valorem duty of 30 per cent. on certain tiles, by certain specific duties. The Committee have given their reasons for their recommendations in their Report. They are satisfied that the home manufacturers can meet the present demand and that the increased duty on foreign tiles will enable the home manufacturers to reduce their prices. I have the usual particulars as to prices, demand, countries of origin, employment and matters of that kind, which I shall be happy to give to the House if any hon. Members are interested in those details.

Mr. BENSON: Perhaps the Minister would tell us the countries from which these tiles are imported.

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, the imports come from Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, and certain coloured tiles from the Netherlands and Belgium. The home industry is carried on at Stoke-on-Trent, and the employment is not shown separately in a tile section but forms part of the pottery industry as a whole. The House will appreciate that perhaps one of the results of the introduction of these Orders of a detailed character is to raise a demand for employment statistics being kept in sections of industries rather than for an industry as a whole.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I suppose it is quite certain that in the private discussions before the import Duties Advisory Committee the industry does in fact give the statistics, does say what is the employment in this particular trade, and how that is affected, and surely the House ought not to be deprived of such information.

Dr. BURGIN: I think the whole of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is assumption. No doubt, if the committee asked a specific question, information would be supplied, but I have nothing before me to show that in the particular case with which we are dealing information was volunteered as to the number of British operatives employed in this section of an industry with regard to which there is a good deal of information.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: The industry is also carried on quite extensively in Shropshire, at Jackfield, but my hon. Friend only mentioned Stoke-on-Trent.

Dr. BURGIN: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend—principally carried on. I am not for a moment making any exhaustive survey of the question, but principally tiles are, of course, made at Stoke-on-Trent. That is the home of the pottery industry, and that is where the tiles are principally derived from. Order No. 24 deals with endless band knives, which are used mostly for splitting hides and skins, and the Committee expresses the view, which I think the House will probably wish to endorse, that it is desirable that there should be some manufacture in the United Kingdom of an essential machine tool for assisting such a trade as the splitting of

hides and skins, which is a trade of a very large character. The Order imposes a duty of 7d. per foot length or part of a length on band knives of a certain width, the previous duty being an ad valorem duty and now being replaced by a specific duty. If there is any question on endless band knives, I will deal with it when it has been raised.
Order No. 25, I apprehend, is an Order about which the House may like to know a little more. It came into force on 4th September, 1936, and altered the existing tariff with regard to typewriters in four particulars. It removes an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent., because the specific duty which it imposes is always more than 20 per cent. It increases the duty on typewriters of a weight exceeding 22 lbs. where the cost of the machine is more than £6—in other words, where it is a new machine—and it increases that duty from £3 10s. per typewriter to £4 10s. In 1935 there was a very considerable improvement in business conditions, and yet there was a reduction in the sale of ordinary office or standard typewriters of British manufacture, and the Import Duties Advisory Committee has come to the conclusion that it is essential for the United Kingdom manufacturers to be placed at a greater price advantage than at present, in order to attract the British purchaser to change over from the foreign machine to the United Kingdom machine, and so the duty is increased on a new foreign typewriter of standard character. The House will understand that a standard typewriter weighing more than 22 lbs. cannot be bought new for £6, and therefore the classification of a typewriter costing more than £6 means a new typewriter.
The third way in which this same Order alters the tariff is that it reduces the duty on typewriters of a weight exceeding 22 lbs., where the value does not exceed £6, from £3 10s. to £2 10s. a machine. That reduction of duty on machines that are sold at less than £6 is to help the rebuilding industry in this country. There is a very considerable industry in what is known as a rebuilt typewriter, that is to say, a machine which has served its day and generation but which is built up to become a machine selling at less than a new article normally worth a little over £20. Machines which are imported at £6 or less are second-hand


machines intended to be rebuilt in the United Kingdom before being placed on sale, and the committee expresses the hope that the reduction will mean an increase in the import of machines which need rebuilding at the expense of the machine which has been rebuilt abroad.
The fourth alteration in the duty increases the duty on parts of typewriters. Hon. Members in many parts of the House know something of the way in which the United States export to this country not merely the entire typewriter, but the parts from which a typewriter can be made, and it is a maxim of the Import Duties Advisory Committee that if it places a duty on an imported article, it does not mean that the article is to be imported in pieces and assembled here without paying the same duty as the entire machine would pay. So there is a duty put up from 3s. to 3s. 6d. per lb. on cases and parts. With a higher duty on the complete machine, an increased duty is obviously necessary on the parts, and the Committee thinks that the increase of 6d. will be sufficient, but that will not apply to electric motors, where the specific duty on a weight basis bears rather hard, and they are to be charged as electrical machinery. That is a refinement, however, with which the House need not be troubled to-day.
Having dealt with Orders Numbered 25 and 24, I pause to point out that Numbers 22 and 23 deal with the duties on lace and felt hats, neither of them increased duties, and, therefore, they do not require affirmative resolutions of the House. Number 26 deals with hot-water bottles. [Laughter.] They are very desirable articles in anybody's luggage in an English climate.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Why tax them, then?

Dr. BURGIN: Because we want to tax the cheap hot-water bottles coming here from Germany and Japan in order that our own manufacturers may be encouraged. The Order imposes from the 5th September, 1936, the first date on which a hot-water bottle is likely to be required, a duty of 4s. 6d. per dozen bottles, as an alternative to the present duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem. British manufacturers can supply most of the demand, but of late the foreign competition

has increased to 12,500 dozen in the first six months of 1936 compared with less than one-third of that quantity in the first six months of 1935. The foreign goods have for the most part been imported at extremely low prices. The way to deal with the competition of low-priced articles is not by an ad valorem duty, but by a specific duty, and the Committee have adopted that sensible suggestion. There is no reason why British manufacturers should not be able, with the supplies of rubber available, to make every hot-water bottle that this country requires.

Mr. ACLAND: Can the British manufacturer do that?

Dr. BURGIN: It is not in accordance with the information supplied to the Committee or to me that the British manufacturer is working to such capacity that there is no ability to fulfil more orders. I shall be willing to deal with that point in the course of the Debate. Number 27 deals with granite, on which an additional 10 per cent. ad valorem, making 30 per cent., is proposed on granite, dressed, polished, carved or otherwise worked, with certain exceptions, chiefly for headstones or tombstones, thus helping that deserving city of Aberdeen.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will there be any headstones for the Government?

Dr. BURGIN: No doubt in due time. I come now to the only remaining Order, which is Exemption Order No. 7. The reason I deal with this Order is that the alteration in connection with potassium fertiliser salts is necessary for administrative reasons, because it was found in practice to be difficult to distinguish certain mineral potassium fertiliser salts from processed salts, and the Amendment now proposed will obviate the need for attempting that distinction and will do no damage to any home interests. An affirmative resolution is desirable because the new definition may conceivably render liable to duty some potassium nitrate which hitherto was free of duty.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We have had an exposition from the Parliamentary Secretary of these Orders, and his comments upon them have aroused a certain amount of humour. No doubt, when we look at the details of some of the Orders, that humour may be maintained. In the


general discussion which we are permitted when we take a number of Orders en bloc I would, however, rather strike a more serious note for discussion. We have seen such a change in the position of those countries which adhere to what was called the gold bloc in the last few months, and we have seen such statements made by the ex-Financial Secretary, now the Minister of Agriculture, at Geneva, that one would have thought that the attention of the House of Commons would be devoted from now on towards a freer position in international trade rather than to the introduction of new Orders. It is true that this block of Orders, introduced, as usual, somewhat late in the evening, although not quite so late as usual, has to be passed as a block because the duties are already on. One of the reports is dated June and the imposition of the duty began in August, so the British taxpayer has been paying quite steadily an increased rate of duty ever since August, and now, on 12th November, the House of Commons, the true representatives of the people, are asked to say whether or not this duty should continue to be paid. I think that is really a ridiculous position, and one which as soon as may be ought to be altered; but I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I hope that before we get a new set of Orders such as appear on the Paper or another set of Orders such as we were given notice of at the opening of the new Session of Parliament, there will be a real attempt by the Government to introduce a different policy.
I find among this block of Orders one or two which urge me to put that point of view to the Parliamentary Secretary. For example, there is the particular Order, which caused a little mirth, imposing a tax on a certain domestic article in order, I suppose, to try to increase domestic felicity. The particular article is the hot-water bottle made of rubber, now very largely imported from Japan. I had a discussion recently, in the course of the Conference on Pacific Relationships, with a large number of influential Japanese representatives, and also some discussion on this point with representatives of the United States of America. I think that in the case of rubber goods and the Japanese export of pencils an agreement has already been

fixed up between Japan and the United States with the object of avoiding the kind of Order which is being made tonight; and although that arrangement does not lead to that completely free exchange of goods which so many of us desire, it will at least avoid these continual increases of charge to users or consumers and is therefore likely to lead to a freer exchange of trade.
I hope that before we get another series of these Orders we shall learn from the Government that they are really directing their attention, especially in view of the new monetary position, to a freer exchange of trade. The policy of the Government is proving completely fallacious in regard to the balance of trade. As I said the other day in the Debate on the Address, here we are with a miserable adverse balance of imports over exports of something like £242,000,000 down to the end of September, and by the end of the year it will be more than £300,000,000. Unless there is a most extraordinary jump in invisible exports, such as insurance and shipping, there must certainly be at the end of this year not merely an adverse balance of trade in goods but an adverse balance of payments. It may be argued that the Government, in this policy, have been assisting to improve the position by keeping certain imports out, but what is happening in fact is that their policy is failing to maintain any proper ratio between imports and exports, and we cannot live in the prosperity which is desirable in this country unless we get a corresponding expansion in exports. While it is encouraging to see a certain improvement in the export position in the last 12 months it is not proportionate to the increase in imports, and we are largely "queering our own pitch" in this country, as producers, by the fiscal policy we are adopting. Therefore, I hope that the Government will give us some assurance that they will revise their outlook and their policy on these fiscal questions.
On account of the lateness of the hour and the fact that one or two other Members want to speak I do not propose to say any more on the general issue, and only a word or two about two particular Orders, the first of them that dealing with typewriters. I have listened to


some expositions in my time. The Parliamentary Secretary, I admit, is a past-master in making the best of a very bad job. He always looks up his book and speaks with great lucidity, but as I listened to his argument to-night about typewriters I thought "This is really the policy of a mad March hare rather than a sound and sane policy with regard to the business of the country." Hon. Members will recollect his reason why there should be a reduction in the import duty upon second-hand typewriters of a value of less than £6. The idea is that you have to give a fillip to a new and growing industry which is engaged entirely in the process of rebuilding machines which, he said, had served their day and generation.
At the same time, as the reason for increasing the duty upon new machines of a standard type, he explained that although we were in the midst of a sort of boom of prosperity, and business had much increased, nevertheless the actual sale of new British typewriters had gone down in the last 12 months. The remedy for that, apparently, is to import more second-hand typewriters for rebuilding. It really was a remarkable case to put to the House of Commons. The very large organisation with which, the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I am connected, has no desire to give special preference to foreign machines. In our organisation we use only British typewriters, except for particular types of machine with special accountancy and other gadgets which are not so well provided upon British machines. Our standard machines are all British.
The facts behind this recommendation are extraordinary. We are asked to approve to-night an increase of £1 in the duty on each of the standard machines. What is the price position? Take the four principal standard machines which are imported, the Underwood, the Remington, the Royal and the L.C. Smith. The price of those four standard machines is £30. Now let us take the two principal British machines, the Barlock and the Imperial. The price, in one case of the 11 inch and in the other case of the 12 inch, is £26 10s. and £27, so that they are already underselling the foreign machines by £3 10s. or £3. We are told that the remedy for their lack of sales at the present time is to put another

pound upon the foreign machine. My own people say to me—I think they do so with sound ground—that we are already giving very hearty and hefty support to the British typewriting producing industry, but if you put a still further duty upon the foreign machines the price will go up of the British machines. History up to date proves that.
I was amazed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say, in respect of another Order which is before the House to-night, that if we put the duty on it would enable the home producer to reduce his price. What an amazing thing that was. We know that, except in one or two particular instances in which the process is quite fortuitous, the consumer pays the duty either upon the foreign article or in the price which the home manufacturer gets for his particular commodity, and that in the long run the very purpose of the duty would fail if that did not happen. You have only to read one paragraph in the report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas to see, in the case of iron and steel, how they are sheltering behind the protection of that great industry solely for the purpose of making profit. Really, that story will not do at all. Therefore, I shall suggest to my hon. Friends to-night that, while we do not want to keep the House in a procession of Divisions on all these Orders, we ought, in view of the ridiculous position with regard to typewriters, at any rate to record our disapproval of this policy by dividing against that Order.
With regard to the Order relating to granite, I do not know of any better ease than the granite industry which shows that this kind of tax is really a tax to protect the inefficient, and, especially in the case of the Aberdeen granite industry, the inefficient in salesmanship. The industry is not without experience of the position, and we are not without experience of buying granite from them. When we want to obtain granite, as many as 50 or 60 travellers will call upon us, all from foreign firms, but, in the case of Aberdeen, I think the whole granite industry has about five travellers to cover the whole country. It is completely out of date in salesmanship as compared with foreign firms, and we have also this spectacle, that they


refuse to sell, as I understand, to anybody who is not in the retail trade. I have had a case put to me in which, when someone goes to place an order, they say, "No, you are a middleman, and you cannot have it," so he goes away and buys some of the finest granite from Finland. It is perfectly ridiculous to ask this House to protect an industry which cannot put its own house in order. One of the principal countries exporting granite to Great Britain is Finland. Finnish granite is of fine quality, and they have an increasing trade. I would also point out that Finland has become one of the most important European countries, and the extent to which you damage the industry is bound to react ultimately upon your own trade—and this at a time when you are facing the increasing difficulties of a large adverse balance of trade and a prospect of an adverse balance of payments.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the balance of trade between this country and Finland?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am prepared to take the Government's own statistics from the Financial Secretary. I do not suppose he wants to see our export trade to Finland decrease; I do not suppose he wants to see the increase which has taken place in our exports to Finland go back.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have just been conducting negotiations with that country, and have a keen interest in our exports to Finland, but the trade balance is very greatly in Finland's favour.

Mr. ALEXANDER: And I suppose the Government want to help the position now by interfering with the extent of trade which is being carried on already. A great proportion of the imports we take from Finland are raw materials. In a certain respect this kind of material is the finished article for headstones, but we use a great deal of granite in building operations in which it is to a certain extent raw material. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to have regard to what I said in the first instance, and I urge upon the Government the necessity for revising this policy, which in my judgment is going increasingly to lead to disaster. The Government cannot always

get away with the benefit of bringing in their tariff policy at a time of steeply falling prices, and we are now going to bring increasing trouble upon our taxpayers, when prices in the world are rising, by maintaining this policy. I hope the Government will revise it as soon as possible.

10.36 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I should like first to say how glad I am, and I am sure the House is, to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade back in his place recovered in health. Two Orders went through in his absence and we missed his clear and precise statement. In fact, it would be impossible to judge and to understand these Orders if it were not for having a very competent representative of the Board of Trade. I was one of those who went out of my way to pay a compliment to the three very distinguished gentlemen when they were appointed to the Import Duties Committee. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time took great trouble to find the most suitable persons, with the necessary trading experience, to discharge these most onerous duties. In the first year or two after the Act we used to have very full elaborate preambles to their recommendations. We nearly always had extracts from the evidence and such information that we could form a satisfactory conclusion as to the reasons for the report. In those days there were a great number of Import Duties going through. Now their work is very light. They are giving us less and less information and treating us with less and less consideration. I hope the Parliamentry Secretary will, in his own interest as well as that of the House, suggest to these distinguished gentlemen that they should take a little more trouble in their preamble to justify the recommendations that they make.
These Orders have already been in operation for some months. When the Import Duties Act was going through, I objected to the provision that it should be Parliamentary days and not calendar months that were required. It is necessary to pass these Orders within 21 Parliamentary days, and we have this absurd anomaly, that you may have three or four months in a long Recess when these Orders are in operation before the House has an opportunity to reject them. I hope I shall live to see the time when the


House of Commons again begins to function in these matters and will rise in its wrath and throw these Orders out. In the meantime the procedure is unsatisfactory. Under the law it is quite in order but it is inadvisable and not in the public interest to pass Orders just before the House goes into Recess. The Department might very well postpone its decisions until the House of Commons is actually sitting and should not rush them through in holiday time. They would be much more profitably employed on holiday in August than passing these Orders.
I want to thank the Patronage Secretary or his distinguished representative for the concession he has made by holding over the most important of these Orders—the iron and steel Order. I agree that these Orders are comparatively small and unimportant. But hot-water bottles will cost more this winter, and it is very significant, as in the case of all these Orders, that somehow or other the cheaper the goods the more they are taxed. They are cheap and of low quality, but they give comfort in these cold, wet days in homes where coal is expensive and fire is short. These small comforts will be taxed, and it is rather a. mean thing to do. I cannot believe that really this powerful, prosperous and strong industry is anxious to have this small side-line which is mostly made by big tyre manufacturers, taxed because a few cheap hot-water bottles come from Japan and Germany.
I want to take up what my right hon. Friend has said about typewriters. Some Members of this House may regard typewriters as a luxury. An hon. Friend behind me says that they are a nuisance. If you work in a bank, in the office of an insurance company, or in a Government Department, or a big organisation, they do not add to the peace and harmony of the office, but typewriters in many cases, where several thousands of them are in use, are an essential raw material of trade and business. To do their work our clerks and typists and business people should have the advantage of the best typewriter available. Why do people buy the more expensive typewriters from America? It is because up to the present—I am sorry to have to say it, but it is the fact—the American typewriter on the whole has been more efficient and satisfactory. It is not a question of price. Already, as the right

hon. Gentleman pointed out, the American typewriter, with the addition of the duty, is considerably more expensive than the English machine.
I am satisfied that the English manufacturer, if he cares to put his back into it, can produce as good a machine as the American, but he ought not to be bolstered up by a high tariff. He is far more likely to improve his machine if the rate of duty is kept low and is not increased. If it is increased, the only result will be to enable him to carry on turning out the same kind of machine as hitherto. It is very significant that there is a large increase in built-up typewriters, an inferor article that many people are induced to buy in preference to British because of the price and of the undoubted tradition in favour of the American typewriter. I say to the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Government that this is one of the small, trivial, rather unwise and short-sighted duties. These duties are small, but I am not going to make too much fuss about them. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said and hope that we shall not have many more of these import duties during the next six months. A gesture was made at Geneva by the French Prime Minister. I do not know whether the Government have given consideration to it and whether there is to be a very satisfactory reply which will have the effect of stopping the work of the Advisory Committee. Let them have a few months' holiday, and let the time of the House be saved from these import duties.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: I should like to add my word of protest to that of the hon. Baronet regarding the appalling scantiness of the preamble. We are told nothing as to the reason why all these various duties are proposed. When I look at Order No. 21 I am not surprised that there is no attempt to justify the proposals. One argument used in this Order is that between 1933 and 1935 there has been an increase of 50 per cent. in the imports of glazed wall and glazed hearth tiles. Between those years there was an enormous expansion in the market for tiles in this country. This is not an industry that is on its last legs. It is not suffering from depression. It is an


industry which, apart from bricks, has more than any other industry received an enormous fillip. A very large number of small dwelling-houses which are being built for sale have as one of their attractions tiled bathrooms. Ten years ago tiled bathrooms were an unheard-of luxury, but throughout the North of England practically every one of these small houses has a tiled bathroom. In addition, in the last few years we have seen the development of a. new fashion in over-mantels. The wooden overmantel is going and the tile overmantel is taking its place. That has meant an enormous expansion of business.
This industry is highly organised in a price-fixing ring. It is an absolutely close ring as far as prices are concerned. Everybody knows that in the last few years enormous fortunes have been made by the tile makers. It is one of the most prosperous industries in the country. They have used their price-fixing with utter ruthlessness. One man said to me: "Our prices have no relation to the cost of production. They are fixed solely upon what the consumer will pay. There is no competition in prices." They have promised that if this Import Order is given they will reduce prices. We had a similar promise from the iron and steel manufacturers. What has happened there? A steady increase in prices. I should like to know what evidence was put before the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the cost of production. What evidence has been given that the imports have seriously affected the profits or the industry in general? There is none shown in the Order. The imports are a very small fraction of the total consumption in this country. The vast bulk is supplied by home manufacture, and to suggest that if they keep out a small number of imports it will enable the manufacturers to reduce prices does not carry conviction, unless there is adequate room for a reduction of prices in the homemade article.
The preamble says that the Import Duties Committee have made inquiries of large industrial consumers and that they are quite agreeable to the imposition of the duty. Who are those large industrial consumers? Are they the big tile dispensers who get in their contracts the price of the article plus a percentage,

or are they the small speculative builder, who is concerned in getting a cheap article? I could understand that the large tile dispenser would be glad to have the foreign article kept out. He gets his price for the article plus a percentage on the cost, and he is utterly unconcerned as to what the price of that article is. Before we can judge as to the validity of the imposition of these duties we must have more information than we have at the present time. As far as I know the tiling industry there is no justification for paying what is an enormously high duty, which, in view of the present condition of the tile manufacturing industry is utterly and completely unjustified.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. ACLAND: I mean to go direct to the duties before us without wasting any time on general issues. As to granite I would draw the attention of the House to this extraordinary sentence:
A very considerable proportion of the present imports represents a new trade in cheap granite memorials which has not been acquired directly at the expense of the British granite industry.
Is not that a charming way of saying that the British industry has not produced, is not producing, and is not likely to produce cheap granite headstones? After all these tariffs have put up the cost of living, there is this to put up the cost of dying. With regard to hot-water bottles, my information from two large London stores is that the demand has risen enormously. In all lines except the very cheapest, which in one case did not get past the door of this particular store because they would not stock such trash, the British and Canadian article is sweeping the market on quality And the industry has ample scope for expansion. Although my own researches cannot cover anything as widely as those of the Ministry and there may be found factories which are not in full production, I have been informed of factories which are working to full capacity. With regard to typewriters I refer to the report:
The sales of British manufactures showed a healthy advance in 1934 over 1933, but in 1935 only slight progress was made, and in the case of ordinary office or 'standard' machines a small reduction actually took place.
That was written on 29th July. I asked a question the day before yesterday of the President of the Board of Trade. I


asked what has been the value of the sales of British typewriters in 1933, 1934, and 1935. He gave the figures for 1933 and 1934 as 268,000 and 319,000. I should say that that is a very healthy advance. He got his information as a result of the Import Duties Act inquiries. But he said that the corresponding information for the year 1935 was not yet available. How is that possible? The information is in the Order. They can get it so accurately that in one particular section of the industry, they say, a small reduction has actually taken place. I say that we should not pass these Orders until we are given this information.
Now I come to tiles, about which I have something even more important to say. Let me quote from the recommendation of the Committee:
There has been a marked increase in imports … of half as much again.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what the actual increase has been? Can we have the figures and how they compare with British production? I am not trying to catch the hon. Member. I do not know the answer. The report says that this increase
has been attended, particularly in the white tile section, by foreign price-cutting below the level of British prices.
They say that they have consulted the largest consumers. I have taken the trouble to get into touch with one of the largest house builders in the London area. He has not been consulted. He told me that the price of British white tiles is Ss. per square, and that the price of foreign tiles, which the report says has been cut below the level of British tiles, is also 5s. per square. I am told by this large builder in the London area that the price of British and foreign tiles has been 5s. per square for the last two years, without any variation. The Committee also says:
We are satisfied that the United Kingdom manufacturers are now fully equipped to meet the demand.
This builder tells me that already he has difficulty in getting delivery of British tiles, and if you put a duty of 2s. 3d. per square, a duty of 50 per cent., the whole of the British house-building industry will be forced to go to the British manufacturers, and in my opinion delivery will not be difficult but impossible. The Committee also say:

We understand that if the increased protection we recommend is granted, it will be possible for them to make reductions in their present schedules.
It is well known that the making of tiles is closely controlled by a ring; there is no competition inside the home market, and the result of a 2s. 3d. duty per square will be an immediate increase in the price of British tiles. If we are beaten in the Division Lobby we shall have to take a careful note of what happens.
Now I want to say something about knives, and to support what has already been said as to the need for more care in the preparation of these recommendations. The Committee say:
For a time the British manufacturers were able to make progress and to sell their knives at prices competitive with imports, but more recently the prices of foreign knives have been substantially reduced and they are now sold at exceptionally low prices with which it is impossible for the home manufacturers to compete.
What do we gather from that statement? We assume that the British manufacturer was trying to sell a good-quality knife at, say, £5 and that, as the foreign price was only £4 10s., he could compete, but that within recent months there has been a drastic cut in the foreign price to something like £3 10s. But this is what I have heard from somebody who is well established in the trade:
There has been an effort in this country to establish a business in endless band knives; they are being offered to the trade. We are not aware of any reduction in the price at which foreign knives can be bought.
Yet we are told in this recommendation that there has been a terrific foreign drive at cut-throat prices—prices with which it is impossible for the home manufacturer to compete. It may be that this foreign drive at low prices has entirely missed a firm which is well established in the industry in which these knives are used. It may be that my correspondent is lying, or that there is some mistake in the Order; but I think the House ought not to pass the Order until the Parliamentary Secretary has shown us where the mistake lies and has given quotations showing what the prices are. I would like to tell the hon. Gentleman what I say the prices are: English knives £2 7s. 6d., German knives £2 15s.,


American knives £3 5s., and corresponding prices for knives of other lengths and sizes. The firm which gave me this in-formation said:
We have had experience with knife purchase from English firms, and although the knives we have purchased from them have sometimes given satisfaction, the quality has not been as consistent as knives purchased from Messrs.£
In other words, it is the same old story. We cannot make the article yet and the industry is to be forced into purchasing an article of an inferior quality. I have made these remarks because, as a result of a little investigation, I have received information directly contrary to that which has been given us, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give an answer.

11.3 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) was in his place when I introduced these Orders, because I gathered from his remarks that nothing had been said about knives; but in introducing the Orders I was careful to point out that the question with regard to knives was not one of price. The knives for splitting skins are essential machine tools, and it was thought desirable that there should be an adequate and healthy manufacture of these knives in this country. Consequently, I dismiss at once any question of prices. What I am concerned about is to see that a tool which we greatly require should be made here. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and a number of other hon. Members have referred to the question of tiles. Some reference was made to the price of 5s. The figure that I have as the c.i.f. value of the foreign tile is 3s. ld. per square yard. That is the information which I am able to give to the House.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield said quite rightly that there has been a, big boom in building, a great demand for tiles, so that it is no wonder that the demand for tiles, foreign and British, has gone up. There is, however, another consideration. If in an expanding industry it is found that the proportion of that expansion which is being taken by foreign imports is growing, it is time to do something about the matter. This House has decided what to do about it

by passing an Act of Parliament which places the Import Duties Advisory Committee in the position to receive evidence, to hear the whole of the case and to go into it in detail—not to ask one friend in the trade whether he happens to have heard of a knife.

Mr. BENSON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us the relative proportions of foreign and British tiles used in this country.

Dr. BURGIN: What I would prefer to say, as a broad generalisation, is that in the development of the building trade, there has been an increased demand for tiles and that the proportion of that trade which has gone to the foreigner is an expanding and increasing proportion. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] With great respect it is quite immaterial what it is. I am satisfied as the Government spokesman to ask for a duty in respect of that increasing proportion of foreign trade without detailing the amount. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris)—and I thank him for his most kind references to my own recovery—mentioned the case of hot-water bottles and said that the duty would fall upon the cheap article. As I listened to him and to the hon. Member for Barnstaple, who took up the refrain, I could not help wondering what those hon. Members would do, if they were receiving a deputation of manufacturers who told them that there was competition from Japan. They spoke as if that were a novelty but I assure them that in a great many trades there is competition from Japan which has an entirely different wage level from ours and where the people live on rice and fish—and grow the one and catch the other. It is precisely in the case of these very cheap articles that the Import Duties Advisory Committee has found it necessary to make these recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) mentioned the Aberdeen granite industry, but he knows that all the arguments which he mentioned were put to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and were considered by the committee and were over-ruled.

Mr. ALEXANDER: As usual.

Dr. BURGIN: Whether it is usual or not it is not for me to say, but all those points were taken into consideration by


this tribunal before they made their recommendation. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green asked whether a typewriter was a raw material or a luxury. I should say that, to a Minister as a means of dealing with the correspondence of 615 Members of Parliament, they are a blessing.

Mr. BELLENGER: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the typewriters or the typists?

Dr. BURGIN: The point which I put to the House is this: Hon. Members may wonder why if a British typewriter is sold at a lower price than its American equivalent there is not already sufficient inducement to do as the great co-operative movement has already done and buy most of the machines from British factories. It is precisely to that argument that the Committee address themselves. They say that the typewriter was an invention of the United States, that it was greatly improved in the United States, that the English industry has come along very much later in the day, and they say that in order to induce people to change over from the American typewriter there must be a greater price differential than there is at present. That is the whole object of the duty. It is not a suggestion that the British price is to go up, but that in order to induce British consumers to buy the British article, which is admittedy cheaper, it must be by so much cheaper as really to warrant the change over.
The right hon. Member for Hillsborough will not expect me to deal with the various economic considerations which he introduced, but I would just say that all these Orders were made prior to the devaluation of the franc. None of his observations about the

gesture made by France at Geneva applies to these particular Orders. It may very well be that the comments which he has made of a general character are such as should commend themselves to His Majesty's Government. That is another argument, but the whole of these Orders came into force prior to the devaluation of the franc. He referred a great deal to the balance of trade and said that, as imports are coming in so much better, why do we have matters of this sort? One of the methods of correcting the balance of trade will be by duty on some of these imports, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he draws conclusions from the character of the increase in imports, to investigate their nature a little more fully.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 21) Order, 1936, dated the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 24) Order, 1936, dated the twenty-sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 25) Order, 1936, dated the second day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The House divided: Ayes 153; Noes 91.

Division No. 6.]
AYES.
[11.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Christie, J. A.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. w.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Albery, Sir I. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Apsley, Lord
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Craddock, Sir R. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bull, B. B.
Critchley, A,


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crooke, J. S.


Astor, Hon. w. W. (Fulham, E.)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Butler, R. A.
Cross, R. H.


Baldwin-Webb. Col. J.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Crossley, A. C.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Cruddas, Col. B.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Carver, Major W. H.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)


Bernays, R. H.
Cary, R. A.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Channon, H.
Dawson, Sir P.


Blindell, Sir J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Denman, Hon. R. D.




Dodd, J. S.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Liddall, w. s.
Remer, J. R.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lloyd, G. W.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)


Eckersley, P. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Elliston, G. S.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Rowlands, G.


Elmlpy, Viscount
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Salmon, Sir I.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Salt, E. W.


Entwistle, C. F.
Mac Donald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Erskine Hill, A. G.
McKie, J. H.
Sandys, E. D.


Fleming, E. L.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Ganzonl, Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Southby, Com dr. A. R. J.


Greene, w. p. C. (Worcester)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Spens, W. P.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Guy, J. C. M.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Munro, P.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Nail, Sir J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Herbert. Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Titchfieid, Marquess of


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Holmes, J. S.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Peake, O.
Wakefield, W. W.


Hulbert, N. J.
Penny, Sir G.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Perkins. W. R. D.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Keeling, E. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Proeter, Major H. A.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Radford, E. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.



Latham, Sir P.
Ramsbotham, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert-




Ward and Mr. James Stuart.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.


Amnion, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Price, M. P.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Sarr, J.
Hicks, E. G.
Ridley, G.


Bellenger, F.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brooke, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Cassells, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Chater, D.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daiton, H.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobble, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
White, H. Graham


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Glbbins, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Whiteley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 26) Order, 1936, dated the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 27) Order, 1936, dated the nineteenth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Teasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House, on the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 7) Order, 1936, dated the twenty-eighth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.".—[Dr. Burgin.]

ESTIMATES.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein.

Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Twenty-eight Members.

Committee nominated of Mr. Barr, Sir Charles Barrie, Mr. Benson, Mr. Brocklebank, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Ede, Mr. Owen Evans, Colonel Goodman, Sir Arnold Gridley, Sir Cecil Hanbury, Sir Patrick Hannon, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Leach, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. Magnay, Captain Peter Macdonald, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Munro, Mr. Parker, Mr. Peat, Sir Isidore Salmon, Mr. Servington Savery, Major Shaw, Mr. Simpson, Sir Robert Smith, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Watkins.

Ordered,
That Seven be the quorum.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to appoint one or more Sub-Committees, and in that event to apportion the subjects referred to the Committee between the Sub-Committees, any of which shall have the full powers of the undivided Committee; and that Four shall be the quorum of any of the Sub Committees.

Ordered,
That the Committee do report any evidence taken by the Committee or by any of the Sub-Committees to the House.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time."—[Sir G. Penny.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Sir Irving Albery, Mr. Benson, Lieut.-Colonel Colville, Mr. Culverwell, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Lathan, Mr. Mabane, Mr. Peat, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Sir Assheton Pownall, Sir Eugene Ramsden, Mr. Wilfrid Roberts, Sir Isidore Salmon, Sir Arthur Michael Samuel, and Sir Robert Smith nominated Members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Sir G. Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.